NSDA Middle School Nationals

2019 — Dallas, TX/US

Armaan Aggarwal Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Maitri Ajmera Paradigm

8 rounds


Put me on the email chain or give me a flash of all the speeches before you start: maitriajmera@gmail.com

4th Year debater @ Wichita East

Feel free to go fast but clarity> speed. I'll clear you twice if I think you're unclear.

Tech> Truth. A conceded arg is a true arg but only if it’s extended properly.

Engage the aff. Case debates are nice (not stock issues lol). Impact turn debates can be interesting.

I'll vote off the flow. I'll default to a policymaker unless told otherwise.

These days, most of my 2nrs are either a DA+ CP or a K (fem or neolib). I don't care what you read or go for, just do what you need to do to win.

Specific args:

T- Not gonna lie, these aren't my favorite debates but I will still definitely listen and vote on it if you win it. Impact it out and you’ll be good.

CP + DA- This is what I go for most often. I enjoy these debates very much and appreciate good impact calc.

K- Ks are cool but don’t get too wild. I’m familiar with cap, fem, biopolitics, exceptionalism, and ~kinda~ set col. If you are reading something besides this, heavy explanation will be crucial to making sure I understand.

Theory- I will reject the arg not the team and will only vote on it if there has been an egregious instance of in round abuse. Condo is an exception.

All in all, do what you do best and i'll do my best to accomodate to you. I won't intervene unless you decide to be a dick. Say sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist things and I'll deck your speaks or even vote you down if it's egregious enough.

Cameron Albright Paradigm

8 rounds

Policy Paradigm:

Framework -If you don’t tell me how to vote then I will just vote on stock issues. I love good framing debate with impact calculus in speeches.

Spreading -No Spreading. If the average person can’t understand what you’re saying then I’m not going to flow it.

Kritiks -If you run a K then you need to demonstrate that you understand the philosophy behind it. Don’t just run a K because you can. I’m okay with them but I need to know that you know what your talking about.

Topicality -If you want to win on T then you should spend actual time proving the violation and how it inhibits NEG ground. I won’t vote on a Ts that are clearly just fillers.

Conditionality -You can kick out of arguments but I want the speeches to be focused on main voting issues so if you’re going to kick out of an argument do it in the negblock, doing so in the 2NR is just a time skew.

Counterplans -Counterplans HAVE to be non-topical, that’s basic policy theory. AFF: perms are tests of mutual exclusivity. Perms don’t “solve” things because they’re testing for if the CP is mutually exclusive.

Aidan Anderson Paradigm

8 rounds


I'm a first-year-out from Columbus HS who competed on the Georgia and National circuits with moderate success.

General Preferences:

Keep your own speech & prep times.

Truth < Tech

Pathos < Logos

Longer Ev > More Ev

Analytics > Evidence


Though I'm Tech > Truth, an argument must be technically sound for me to vote off of it (e.g. If you make a timeframe argument about 'x' inevitably happening to 'y', I require a brink, trigger, or bright-line).

I can flow anything if you're clear.

First Rebuttal:

Card Dump < Warrant Engagement

Second Rebuttal:

No new offense.

Must cover 1st rebuttal's turns.


Extend Defense.

No new offense or evidence.

Final Focus:

Speech content is limited to that from the summary.

Cross Fires:

I don't flow them.


If you have any questions about how I will evaluate the round, feel free to ask me.

I DO disclose and give feedback.

If you have any questions contact me on Facebook messenger or email me: anderson.aidan.t@gmail.com

Vishvak Bandi Paradigm

8 rounds

Coppell '19.

UT Dallas '23.

I am a first year out, not debating in college.

Pronouns - He/him or They/Them.

2A/1N for 3 yrs, 1A/2N for 1.

Add me on the email chain. vishvakbandi@gmail.com. This should be done before the round.

I like pre-round music and I'll be happy if you play some. +0.1 if you have good music.

Conflicts - Coppell High School and anybody who I've coached, received money from in the past year, or have/had a relationship outside of debate with.

LD -

If I'm judging LD, read my policy paradigm. That should sum up most things.

For Greenhill - Email/Gchat me if you have questions about my philosophy - TLDR is that I'd prefer a more "progressive" round, but the LD specific things I've written are short/vague and I'd be happy to elaborate.

Be on time. Theory arguments like "shoes theory" are terrible and will not work in front of me.

I probably don't know anything about the topic. I also don't know what a "criterion" is, or why people "value" morality so much. Underviews and RVIs are annoying. Trix are for kids. Do not read trix in front of me. I cannot evaluate them to the effect you want me to. If you have me in the back the best way to do things is debate like its a policy round or explaining the random LD things like phil very well. RVIs are also very sketchy.

Short Version

Debate has 2 rules - One person wins and one person loses and speech times. Follow them and and do what you want.

This is from M.Overing's paradigm, but I think this sums up mine - "If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

I try to judge the debate as I would've liked all of my judges to evaluate mine. I liked judges who listen to all types of arguments, so I do my best to be that judge.

I go into rounds with as much of a blank slate as possible, so you should tell me how you want arguments used. I try to remain as impartial as possible, but the biases I list below will probably come into play if they're not debated. All of them can be reversed by out-debating the other team.

Meta Level Things

Tell me what to do - I don't like to intervene so giving me impact framing or telling me how to evaluate a debate will get you far. My ideal RFD would be "I voted aff/neg in this debate because " <Insert the first 2-3 sentences of the 2NR/2AR overview>.

Not a super big fan of debate coach evidence but it is what it is. You should not read evidence from a current or former coach of yours.

Mark cards during the speech - I don't ask for it, but I expect you to send it if your opponent asks.

I flow Cross-x. You still need to extend things that happen in cx like normal arguments.

I don't vote on false arguments - If you're just objectively wrong about something (a T violation they didn't violate, saying racism good, etc) I won't vote on it.

You can (and should) rehighlight cards - if you think you have an indict you can "insert rehighlighting here" and give me an explanation of what the rehighlight means for the card and round. If this explanation isn't making any argument, I will not flow it, or the rehighlight. If the start, end, or article is different, I expect you to read the new highlighting out loud.

Ev quality matters - Read 1 or 2 good cards, not 10 bad 1 line UQ cards.

Truth v. Tech - I flow. I also use my flows to determine the winner of the debate. That said, I do think there is a certain amount of truth that plays into my decisions. At the end of the day, an argument needs sufficient amounts of explanation to win, even if it was dropped.

Sass/shade is rly fun. Don't be rude.

-1 speaks for saying the words "reverse voting issue" or "RVI" in a policy round.

There's a difference between new 2AR spin and new 2AR arguments.


Reject the argument, competing interps, neg on presumption, util good.


I don't really care. Don't use speed as a way of pushing other teams out of the debate space. I'll call clear 3 times, and then stop flowing if it continues. If I don't flow it I don't evaluate it.

Case Debates

This is where I start evaluating most debates.

I love it when a neg team is able to use case defense/offense well and beat the aff before I look at the other flows.

All Impact turn and impact d debates are great. Double turns are wowee. Triple turns are uWu.

I hate shadow extending case, but I also hate hearing the same overview 4 times.

30 speaks if you read 8 minutes of impact turns without repeating yourself and win the round.

Policy Affs

Defend your aff - that's literally all you have to do. I really don't care what you read or have a preference for types of affs.

I love teams that beat the K on extinction o/w.

The advantage should be at least 6 cards long.

Read actual DA answers if you read a soft left aff. Kessler 8 and Conetta 98 don't answer the DA.

Limit the framing contention to 5 minutes of the 1AC.

You can't say fiat solves everything.

K affs

Fine with them. Don't just go "*Buzzword* *Buzzword* surprisedsealedsurprised we win the round."

While I might know what the buzzword means, I still expect good explanation and analysis. Make sure you know what you are talking about. If you read a poem/play music, it should be relevant after the 1AC.

What you defend probably shouldn't change every speech.

I need to know the method and what the aff does by the end of the debate. This doesn't mean I need a 3-minute explanation, but I need to know what I vote for and why what I vote for is a good thing.

I prefer you have a relation to the topic and that you answer questions in CX.

If you want to win you need to explain your method, framing, and the impacts you solve.

Winning the TVA and impact debate makes it hard for me to vote neg. Do that and win that your model of debate is better, and it's very easy for me to vote aff.

Also, fairness is probably an internal link (or is it? you tell me), and Antonio 95 is bad.

I believe that the aff gets perms in method debates.

I reward a well thought out and executed performance.

Ctrl-F for "Framework" and read that.


TVAs are underutilized in T debates. Use them.

T is never an RVI.

Very technical and well carded T debates are my favorite kind of T debates. The best definition cards are contextual to the resolution and are exclusive, not inclusive into a group. There must be some sort of intent to define in your interpretation evidence.

Aff specific violation cards are epic and can help you quite a bit.

Impact this out the same way you'd impact out disads or FW against a K aff.

Reasonability is about how reasonable the counter interp it. I dislike reasonability 2ARs, but they can win rounds.


I'll preface this by saying most FW debates are boring because there isn't clash. Actually engage arguments and I will be happy. Answer and win the Aff arguments and I will vote on it. These debates usually come down to impact calculus for me.

I think that Framework is about competing models of debate between what the aff justifies and what the negative thinks is best. This means that if you go for framework as a way to limit out content from debate you will not win (ex. "vote us up because we remove Baudrillard affs from the debate space").

At the end of the debate, I should have an idea of what the aff's model of debate looks like, even if you go for an impact turn. If your strategy is impact turns to the 2NR, go for it, but there needs to be analysis contextual to the negative disads.

The negatives model of debate should be able to access the same education and subject formation that the aff is able to access ie. you need to tell me why policy education is able to create good subject formation and education, or how clash is key to education about "x" scholarship.

Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive against identity-based arguments. Fairness is probably not the best impact against teams making identity-based arguments. I'll vote on it but it's a very thin line to walk. Against all other teams it should make an appearance.

A surprising amount of teams read FW 2NCs on arguments the 1NC didn't have.

My flow gets long so I would prefer if the 2NC is just straight down with a short O/V.

A lot of the times I vote neg in these debates because the aff doesn't answer the TVA properly, doesn't engage limits offense, or isn't doing enough analysis on the impact level.

Make a TVA with a solvency advocate. TVAs need substantive answers outside of "doesn't solve the aff."


I love a good Disad debate. Do impact calc. I hate bad politics DAs. I will not do work for you on the link debate. Point it out if they powertag random framing cards.

Specific impact calculus ( I prefer "India Pakistan war turns into a nuclear conflict, that escalates and has higher probability" over "").

The arms sales topic has some great disads. Don't ruin them by saturating the topic with terrible ones.

I don't come in with a "Uniqueness controls the link," predisposition - I expect it to be debated out.

Don't call midterms "mids" or politics "tix" or anything like that, -1 speaks.


Case-specific counterplans are the best - generic things win rounds but its a harder sell. I don't judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to.

Presumption goes aff if the 2NR has a CP.

I think theory is a reason to reject the argument until the other team wins that it's not.

Cheating counterplans are cool until the other team starts winning theory. Tell me if they're legitimate and why.

I'll vote on PICs. Make sure to answer theory.

Counterplan text amendments or changes of the actor in the 2NC are probably not legitimate - especially if its because you messed up and used the wrong actor.

Going for the Internal Net Ben as a disad is very cool.

You can (and probably should) pic out of problematic language. I'll listen to random stuff but won't be inclined to vote on it unless really good work is done here.


A good theory debate will please me. Prove in-round abuse for an easier ballot.

Don't read K's bad, new affs bad, etc - They're objectively wrong and reading a different theory shell with a smart interp is much better (ex. Instead of new affs bad read disclosure theory with an interp like "new affs must disclose plan text.")

Condo - 4 is probably the upper limit in front of me. At a minimum, I think the neg gets 2 + the squo. No evidence for an advocacy, combining them later in the debate, amending and adding to CPs will make me more likely to vote aff.

I find myself believing that theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. This changes if it gets debated out.

I don't really have any other predispositions when it comes to theory.


I am always tech > truth on the K flow, unless the K is problematic.

The best K debaters give very organized and easy to flow speeches, do good line by line, and tell me what arguments matter the most. To do this, limit the overview to 2:30 and do as much quality line by line as possible.

The floating PIK should be made clear before 2NC Cross-X.

I'm most familiar with the lit base for cap, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, queerness, security, and bio-politics, but don't let that keep you from reading Bataille or Nietzsche. Just explain the thesis a bit better. If you're reading these high theory/pomo arguments contextualization matters a lot to me.

I should be able to look at my flow and understand the thesis of your argument after the round.

If you don't win your thesis claims I don't see a world where I can vote you up, so defend them well.

K Framework is very important and should probably have a card if it's more complicated than "Endorse the best subject formations." Aff needs to develop more substantive arguments about fairness/state engagement.

I see 1ARs spend too much time on fairness when its either a wash or obviously being won by one side. Explain what happens if you get to weigh your aff and stop spending 3 minutes on 1 line arguments from the 2NC about fairness because it won't ever be in the 2NR. TLDR - answer arguments but don't spend 30 seconds on each fairness subpoint when 5 will do.

If you win framework it becomes so much easier for me to vote neg. This also applies to root cause/ontology args. Win them, because its a easy neg ballot if you do.

The more specific the link and the more time is devoted to a comprehensive alternative explanation = the more likely I am to vote for you.

The 1AR should be hard. If it's not you're debating someone good or there are issues with the block.

I don't believe all perms are either intrinsic or severance.

Examples can win you the round so give them to me - they're underutilized by a lot of K teams and it shows me you all don't research your arguments.

I reward a well thought out and executed performance.

Your 2NR needs to have an explanation of how the alt resolves all of the links and impacts you go for. That means a 2NR with little explanation of the alt needs to be winning links and impact framing claims to win the round.


These are a sore point for me. I've been .2 or .3 away from breaking way too many times. I'll try to look at the judge list before and normalize my speaks to what I feel everyone else is giving.

If its a circuit tournament I'll go with the usual speaks scale you see. I usually start at 28 and average at around 28.7. If you get a 28.7 or higher, I believe that you were debating at a level I would expect to see in an elim round at that tournament.

If it's a lay tournament where everyone arbitrarily gets 30s I will give 30s to everyone.


Flashing isn't prep, but I can tell if your stealing prep.

Bring it up if someone is clipping cards.

Don't be racist, sexist, queerphobic, etc. I'll vote you down immediately. I have an extremely soft spot in my heart for the LGBTQ+ population.

Don't shake my hand or call me judge, it makes me feel weird.

Make me laugh. I 'm on the discord and use reddit and stuff so I know memes. If you make a meme reference or something I'll be happy. If you make a really good joke or meme reference from the discord maybe +.1 speaks.

I'll give you a smiley face on the ballot for making fun of any current or former Coppell debaters (specifically Rohin Balkundi, Het Desai, or Shreyas Rajagopal), or anyone from the discord. If it makes me laugh, +.1 speaks.



Read Shabbir Bohri's Paradigm. It has nothing to do with mine I just thought it was funny.

I'll preface this with a few statements. I believe policy is the better kind of debate. I have a lot of negative feelings about the norms of the PF community. I believe there's a low standard for just about anything in PF rounds - ev quality, LBL, etc. PF also has issues with evidence ethics, with the threshold for "quality" ev and cases being very low, borderline plagiarism. I also read every single piece of evidence read in a round. Treat me as a flow judge.

That being said, I'll evaluate any type of PF round, but I have several expectations if you want speaks higher than a 27.

Do not paraphrase ev. I expect the ev to be cut similarly to policy debate, and the full paragraph included, along with a proper citation. If you paraphrase, I evaluate it as an analytic.

There also must be an email chain. This is a non-negotiable. If one of the teams in a round I'm judging refuses to do this, they get a loss with 25s.

No looking at the "full text" on articles outside of prep time.

All your arguments must be warranted out. I don't want "tagline extensions." If either teams make no actual arguments, I will make my own decision. You don't want me to do that.

I expect the teams to be responsive to each others arguments. Your "crossfire" is not speech time. I will not extend any arguments for you. Flow the speeches and be responsive. If the other team concedes large amounts of your case - its a really easy win for you. But you have to point it out.

I read every piece of evidence sent in the email chain. PF rounds don't have that much ev, so I will do my best to read along with you.

If you disagree with any of that stuff above, save my time and strike me - I'll just go watch a policy round or do something productive.

Theory is really cool but most PF kids don't know how to do it well.

All of this being said, if I do judge a PF round I will enforce several PF norms I am aware of.

I'll give you a smiley face on the ballot for making fun of any current or former Coppell debaters (specifically Shabbir Bohri), or Isaac Appel from Roosevelt. If its good, maybe +.1 speaks.

William Bannister Paradigm

8 rounds

I Default to Tabula Rosa:

I love to see theory debate around framing and arguments revolving around my duty as a judge and I think that burden debate is extremely important. However, if these things don't take place then Ill implement my own value criteria when I consider your impact calc. Unless you tell me otherwise I think that comparatively advantageous is a reasonable standard.

Tech VS Truth - How it affects my evaluation of the flow:

I don't appreciate the weaponization of spread and the over-evaluation of cards that are inherently trash. However, it is important that you clearly state if you are kicking out of arguments otherwise you are at the mercy of me blatantly accepting the tech of you dropping argument no matter the truth of what a team brings up against your dropped argument. Manage your flow, but focus on the flow being a sign that you are clashing on evidence, not splattering cheep recut cards hoping that a team makes a tech error that causes them to lose the round.


Solvency ++++

I'm a strong believer that solvency determines the weight I give to you (SOLVING) for the impacts you bring up during the round. Unless it's fairly convincing I generally don't believe solvency take outs.

Inherency -

UNLESS YALL DEBATING A BILL THAT'S BEEN PASSED, then I generally find inherency a waste of time. AFF if someone gets you on inherency that's pretty bad.

DA ++

DA = Good, DA that runs into a larger narrative about why the AFF is bad = Major brownie points. Important notes: your link chain should tell me a story that you can explain when pushed on. If you can't explain your link chain in cross-X then it's going to take a major tech mess up from the other team for you to get anything on the DA. Also really protect that link on the DA if your the NEG because otherwise, the aff is going to swat that DA away with ease.

CP +++

Counter-plans are good if it is modifying existing policy all the better, I think CPs are at the heart of policy debate. But if you run, RCP, Delay CP, then your wasting valuable speech time.

Our Komrade the K +++

I think kritical debate that around the heart of the topic is awesome so that being said linkage isn't very important to me on the K as long as you can establish a narrative between the case and the K. I think that everyone should experiment with the K during their debate experience. I prefer functionality in an alt, that doesn't nessisarly mean solving for the impact completely, but rather creating change which is comparatively advantageous with the status quo. We ain't gonna hollow out capitalist structures by being big brains.

This being said... I don't vote on the K in the round if it is used because.

-The opposing team belongs to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group

-The excuse for you being a well-developed source on the K is because you belong to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group. If you are then that's great and I am proud of you for finding advocacy, but it doesn't replace a well-rounded knowledge of lit.

Perms ++

Good test the competitiveness in multiple ways. Multiple perms are good. That being said don't run nine perms hoping another team drops one because that's not real debate and I won't vote on that.

Turns ++++

Double Binds ++++++

LOVE a good double bind, combines clever strategy and exemplifies both tech and truth simultaneously! However, if you just go up there and start throwing around the phrase every time the other team makes a contradiction then I won't take you seriously.


If its needed do it, if it's not, don't waste our time (although double blinds between a link and T are accepted strategies)

Theory +/-

I think that theory is an important part of a debate.

Spec +/-

I refuse to treat spec like topicality its not a voter issue. I do think it plays into solvency and it can be used to establish links.

Other things about myself:

R.E.S.P.E.C.T your opponents and teammates. Please try your hardest to use their correct pronouns, I will try my hardest as well, we are all imperfect, we all make mistakes, but have integrity.

Pronouns - it no way affects what you call me what you want.

If you want to bash religious institutions go ahead, if you want to question the truth behind an entire system of belief go ahead. If you think religion is inherently immoral and its the opioid of the masses then lay it all out, I will vote for it. But I will not tolerate being xenophobic in your classification of a religious group. Anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia are not cool. Making offhand comments about the character of a religious group is not cool.



If you want to debate eastern vs western values and make it clear that it's not about race or religion then that's chill. (I.E. Western liberalism V Eastern authoritarian models = Good | "Judeo-Christian dominance" V "Cino Supremacy" = VERY BAD)

Trinity Brockman Paradigm


*sean kennedy is the best lab leader. no cap.*

email: thehangingtree664@gmail.com


4th-year debater @ Manhattan High School

Everything is up for debate.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances.

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content!!! (I will vote you down and walk out IF NOT DONE) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.

Avoid getting in a conversation about credibility in order to run around debating the argument at hand. I will hold claims true until proven otherwise in the round.

Don't take too long with flashing - Be quick and honest with how you transfer files. I love a solid closed cross-ex. I default to whichever style the debaters are comfortable with, ya'll make that decision.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated. If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Framework: I also love framework, but your blocks better be updated and stop using arguments from 2005 that K affs collapse high school programs and that this is the wrong forum. The debate has evolved since then. I believe framework is a criticism of the affirmative’s method, but it also can be utilized as theory or a counter-advocacy if paired with the correct arguments. I'll keep this around throughout the round and will flow it through at the will of the teams.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.

*also i LOVE delay and pic cp's...so have some fun with that

Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.


It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.

Any other questions just find me and ask.

Allen Cao Paradigm

8 rounds

Policy Debate-

I am a current high school rising senior doing policy debate at the Blake School in Minneapolis.

Speak clearly, speed is fine, but make sure you aren't mumbling incoherently. Presentation is not as important as the quality of the arguments, as those will win you the debates.

I am open to a variety of arguments as long as you can make it convincing to me and tell me why. Work on framing the round and weigh impacts + arguments so that I don't have to do the work. Explain why your arguments matter more.

Be aware of your offensive + defensive arguments- that is how I will weigh the round- an aff with no offense and only defense with sufficient negative offensive will be hard to win. Neg with only defense would mean that I would give risk of the plan solving.

Do a lot of impact framing: Probability, Time, Magnitude - very important for evaluation of DAs, CPs, K v. Plan debates.

DAs- I like DAs and will go for it if you can explain why the impacts outweigh the affs impacts and prove why the plan would be a bad idea.

Ks- I am open to hearing a good K debate. On Framework, I will give leeway for the aff to be able to weigh their plan, but make sure sufficient answers on both sides are given. I will go for the perm if you prove to me why the plan is still necessary and how it is still on net good when integrated in a perm. I will go for the perm if the aff sufficiently solves negative offense and prove why the plan is a desirable net-benefit.

CPs- I like advantage and functionally competitive ones- not a fan of PICs. I think that takes away a lot of the debate and doesn't necessary make the CPs unique enough for me to consider voting on it. If you can explain on the neg why the CP and its net benefit outweighs the impacts of the aff and answer aff solvency sufficiently, I may vote on the CP.

Carlos Cedillo Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sharon Cella Paradigm

Coach of King Arts Debate Team 2014-present

Founding Member of the Illinois Middle School Debate League (IMSDL)

I judge an average of 30+ rounds per debate season in the IMSDL and CMSDL leagues

Please include me on all email chains: shamundson@gmail.com

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa

1. ALWAYS roadmap and signpost. Your job is to make my job easy.

2. I'm fine with spreading, but clarity is important.

3. I'm open to all types of arguments, except K AFFs. I just think they're lazy.

4. If you run Topicality, please make it worth my while and give it some gravity.

5. NEVER treat your opponent in a way that I will feel is rude, bullying, or demeaning in any way. I will take off speaks for that type of behavior.

6. I always keep time in the round. You are welcome to keep time for your own team if you wish, but do not attempt to keep official time for your opponents.

7. I always prefer clash at every opportunity. It shows me that you understand the arguments and aren't just throwing stuff out there in a "race to rebuttals/kicking" game.

8. Most simply, tell me what I'm voting for and why. I'll listen to any well made argument.

Sean Chen Paradigm

McKinney '18 (small school, north Texas)

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: chensixiao@gmail.com

I am okay with speed, but make sure to slow down on tags, theory, analytics, etc. If I cannot understand you, I will call "clear."

I won't count flashing/emailing as prep, unless it gets unreasonable. Generally this should take <15 sec., so if you're struggling with this, take some time to learn how to use Verbatim's built in features.

I haven't formed any concrete views about judging debate, which means that I will evaluate most arguments as they are debated. Even though I debated mostly on the policy side in high school, don't let this stop you from reading your best args. I'd rather see a good K debate than a bad policy debate. This does mean, however, that I would appreciate more explanation during K debates, unless you want me to parse through and misunderstand your authors.

I like comparative and detailed impact calculus. This includes comparison of timeframe and probability. Comparison and calculus is crucial for me to evaluate a theory or framework debate.

I am not very familiar with the topic yet. I have only judged at a few local tournaments. If the debate hinges upon some obscure facet of immigration law, an explanation would be great.

This is my first paradigm, so let me know if you have any more specific questions before the debate and I'll do my best to answer them.

Ethan D'Alessandro Paradigm

8 rounds

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


I go to ICW and have debated there for 3 years

Currently a 2A but was a 2N for fresh/soph years

Lot of experience with the topic

Not a good judge for high theory Ks or K affs

DA + Case or DA + CP are some good strats

Impact comparison makes my life easy


For my first 2 years of debate I was a 2N, I switched this year and am now a 2A

I am a junior at Iowa City West High School and have debated 3 years, have a lot of experience with the topic

I'm good for DAs, CPs, T, I'm less good with Ks

Probably don't run your 1 off baudrillard/bataille, I am not familiar with much K lit outside of Security, Agamben, Cap, Fem IR or more policy kritiks

Also probably don't run K affs in front of me, I will vote for them, but I am probably going to lean neg on topicality arguments/framework args and it will be an uphill battle for my ballot, however, I will try as hard as possible to be impartial when making the decision

DA + Case is what I went for all of freshman and sophomore year when I was a 2n so go for it if you want - I will be a good judge for it if you do it well

The case debate is the most underutilized part of debate and I will reward you via speaks if you do it well

Probably most theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team (I can be convinced otherwise of course) except condo

Make my ballot easy - I don't want to have to sit in the back for 20 minutes trying to rework the whole debate, tell me where I should be looking, what to weigh first, make impact COMPARISON especially turns case or turns DA arguments will get you far

Dropped arguments are true arguments to the extent that they have a warrant explained and an implication for them (i.e. "They dropped circumvention" < "They dropped circumvention, Trump can use 49 other programs to sell arms to that country, means the aff can't solve permanently")

I'm 95% tech over truth, but don't read obviously offensive arguments (e.g. racist, sexist, homophobic etc.)

If you say nucUlar in round you get -30 speaker points (not really just a pet peeve)

If you think this is insufficient, either ask me questions in person, email me, or look at my wiki (IC West--->DS)

Finally, debate is a space to explore and run some fun, cool arguments, you do what you do best, and I will try my best to judge the debate fairly and impartially

P.S. If you use and can explain why Sen. Menendez solves certain circumvention arguments I will give you +0.2 speaks

Amber Dawson Paradigm

8 rounds

third year debater @ lansing

do whatever you want, have fun and don't be mean. thanks

Andrew Dimitrakakis Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Khanh-Vy Do Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Pamela Doiley Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ethan Dozier Paradigm

8 rounds


Topicality is a voting issue but it needs voters. No voter= no reason to vote on it

Cross-ex: Be polite i.e. don't yell at each other

Run arguments you know how to run don't try an arg you don't understand.

for spreading don't slur or go so fast i cant understand or I won't flow it

Jay Elder Paradigm

8 rounds

yeah add me to the email chain: s31627@parkhill.k12.mo.us


I'm a senior at Park Hill High School in KCMO, I did cx all three years I did debate. I was the 2A/1N.

I go to an NSDA circuit school, but I've had plenty of flow rounds and sometimes go to NatCir tournaments.

I went to the NSDA national tournament in Congress in 2018, choked, then got 5th in Extemporaneous Debate, and went in Policy in 2019.

I went to the MSHSAA state championships in Policy in 2018 and 2019, placing 3rd in '19.

I've judged a lot of different tournaments, but none of them are on tabroom. I've judged rounds ranging from extremely lay novice all the way to kritikal NatCir flow rounds.

The short version (if you're reading this before a round)

I'm a tabula rasa, game theorist, and slight policymaker judge. I vote primarily on impact calculus, but you can run pretty much anything. As long as you can give me a clear explanation as to why I should vote for your args, I will. You do you, if you have a strat that you like, do it, I'll adjust to your style so you can have the best experience as possible. I'd like to get a flash of all speeches, but if it starts taking too long, I won't need it. Just send it.

For flow rounds, I'm a game theorist, for flay rounds, I'm tabula rasa, and for lay rounds, I'm policymaker.

The long version

Speed: I enjoy fast debate, I see debate as a fun and competitive activity, and if you want to go fast, send it. I'm good with you going as fast as you want, but please dear God make sure you signpost well enough and go slow on tags and cites. The best way to be crystal clear for me on the flow is to go as fast as you want through the warrants and use the "and" strat (say AND before every new tag, emphasize it so I know that it's coming). If you're one of those kids who goes for speed and ends up only speaking in vowels, don't go for speed. It's pretty easy to read me as a judge via facial expressions, so you should be able to tell if I don't understand you. I won't yell "clear" or put my hand up or anything, it's not my job to hold you accountable for speaking. Breadth isn't as important as depth, I'd prefer a round with super specific and in-depth arguments with a ton of clash as opposed to a round with 14 off and barely skimming over each arg just to make sure you get everything in time. If you prefer breadth and want to run it, do it. You'll just have to make sure you tell me why I should vote on your laundry list of args that may have been conceded (like I get it, they conceded it, but you shouldn't stop there, tell why it's important that they conceded and why I should vote them down for it).

Policy affirmatives: I've always run and hit policy affirmatives in my career, so I get them. I like them linear, they should tell a story. Have links for everything, and solvency advocates are a must. If you read a card that's powertagged and you get called out on it, good luck. You need evidence where the warrant itself advocates solvency for your plan.

Kritikal affirmatives: I've never run one, but I like the idea of them. My only statement is that I don't like it when people run them unless they have a direct relation to it and genuinely feel the need for change or whatever you argue, if that makes sense. If you want to run one, do it, but if you run one that complains about suppression in the debate community or something, unless you can prove a ton of suppression and abuse and whatnot, it probably isn't a good idea. K affs are generally less offensive, and I don't like that simply because debate should be fun and entertaining for everyone involved, including the judge. I'd rather vote on the semantics of a plan as opposed to the extent to which society is bad.

Topicality/FW against K affs: Go for it. I like when k affs have at least SOMETHING to do with the resolution, so reasonability can be won by aff if they do, but if not, I'm very likely to vote on T/FW.

Disadvantages: Full send. I love DAs, but make sure they are somewhat realistic with the links. I'll totally vote on wild impacts like terrorism/extinction and whatever, but the DA has to make sense. Don't run something like a wages DA where the links argue brink now but the UQ is from 2004. DAs are cool, I like them, go for it.

Counterplans: I love CP's, even if they are cheating at some times those are the best! A CP can solve some or all of the affirmative. My one requirement for a CP is that it has to have a well explained net benefit to the aff. I like the idea of having solvency advocates for a CP, but it is possible to not have one and be able to analytically explain why your CP can solve the aff. It's a debate to be had!

Theory: Theory is mostly fine for me. If you run it, that's fine, but if you run something like new affs bad, that's dumb and wasting time, and I won't vote on it. As far as I can think of, go for anything else tho and you'll be fine.

Topicality v Policy affs: I love it. I love T more than any other offcase positions. I understand that there's such thing as a topical aff that violates a T interp, and there is such thing as a legitimately untopical aff. Run T on both, I don't care. The more in-depth the argument is, the better. I've run things like T-Should and T-To, I absolutely love stuff like that. Basic things like T-increase are fine as well, I just won't enjoy the round as much.

Kritiks: I've run Ks and hit Ks, I'm not totally anti-K, but I'd rather have an in-depth debate about a plan and not a generic link to a complaint you have. Things like a Nietzsche K (some call it Blow Out The Candle) are stupid, if you run a K, have an alt that's legit and isn't something like "reject the aff" because attempting to do something is better than letting the squo get worse, unless you make an argument saying otherwise. I'm familiar with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Capitalism, Security, Anti-Blackness, Afropessimism, Anthropocentrism, Settler Colonialism, and Neoliberal mostly. If you wanna go for something else, do it. Just make sure you explain it well enough for a lay judge to understand.

Language: Don't be racist, homophobic, or anything like that. Personally, I feel like making sure you don't misgender somebody is important, and technically you're supposed to ask for pronouns prior to the round, but if you accidentally misgender somebody, I won't vote you down for it. Yes it's wrong but I get it, it happens. Unless they make an arg about it like a GenderK or something, I won't use it as a voter. Microaggressions are small, they should be avoided, but not something that dictates a round.

Other: Trigger warnings are necessary for a lot of instances. I won't vote you down if you don't have trigger warnings, but if you discuss things including rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, IPV, and other things of that nature, it'd be nice.

I'm an advocate for judge kick, so I'll do it too.

Throwing shade and being sassy is fun for me and you, I'm totally cool with it, but don't be disrespectful.

I would much rather judge a fast round than a slow round. I'm an NSDA circuit debater so I pretty much only compete in slow rounds and I hate it.

K vs K debate is something I've never experienced, but I'd love to. So if that's an option, GO FOR IT.

Nothing frustrates me more than rounds with no clash. If both teams keep saying "they dropped x" when they didn't and your only response to refutations is extending the evidence they're trying to disprove, I'll enjoy the round less, and you will be more frustrated with the result.

I like humor. If you give funny analogies or just overall are humorous, I'll enjoy the round more. References to Kanye West won't improve your speaks or chances of a win, but it'll make me happy.

If you have any other questions before the round, feel free to ask them.

Lauren Ellenz Paradigm

DAs: I'll vote on generics if specific links are analyzed.

Ks: I'm a fan of Ks as long as you analyze your links well and prove why the kritik matters. I'm most familiar with cap, security, and anti-blackness, but I don't have a problem with voting on other Ks if you explain it well.

CPs: CPs should be compatible with other negative elements. I'm generally not a fan of multiple worlds, but it depends on how you argue it.

T: I'll vote on T if you can prove abuse and impact it out.

Speed: Speed is fine, as long as you're not incomprehensible--somewhere in between your flay speed and your high flow speed is probably best. I'll clear you a few times if I can't understand, and after that I'll stop flowing. Non-flowed arguments won't be considered.

Disclosure: Disclosure is great when agreed upon by both teams, but no team should be forced to disclose. In the event of a theory argument on disclosure, I'm most likely siding with disclosure bad.

Conduct: I don't tolerate in-round sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia. I will dock speaker points, and if the round is close and/or if the offense is entirely inexcusable, I'm willing to make it a voting issue. ALSO! Be nice to each other! Snark and humor are great and can make a round more fun, but there's a fine line, and no one's having fun if you're being rude.

Zoe Fernandez Paradigm

8 rounds

I qualified for Nationals in 2018. I’ve done policy for four years and am a Senior.

I don’t care what you run, just make sure I can understand it. Speed is fine but again, if I can’t understand a word you’re saying then that doesn’t work in your favor.

I judge on three levels. Flow, conduct and style. Simply put, tell me where to flow otherwise I won’t. I don’t interfere in round so if you don’t make the argument you won’t win on it. Be nice in the round, I hate rude and cocky debaters. And style is important but it’s the least important of the other two.

Have fun, it’s your round I’m just living in it.

Candice Frost Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ari Gabriel Paradigm

8 rounds

If in Policy or LD add me to the chain: AriJGabriel@gmail.com

I'm a freshman at Stanford. In HS I debated for 4yrs and did middle school debate for 2yrs. I competed in USX, IX, LD (traditional and progressive/circuit), Congress, and PF. I competed at NSDA nationals twice.

Here are a few things I like to see in rounds:


FW: I like FW, but it's not necessary in LD. I want to know why your VC works as a mechanism for me to view the round through, and please don't use a V of morality in an LD round and justify it by saying "LD is a morals driven debate."

Ks: I enjoy a good K as much as the next person, but it needs to have a clear link to the AC/NC/Resolution. The only exception is Nietzsche Ks. I really don't want to hear your generic Nietzsche K. If you have one prepped and you think you can change my mind you are welcome to run it I will ultimately vote on the flow.

Plans/CPs: I love plans and counter-plans in LD, but you need to run them with a FW.

T: I will vote on theory.


Spreading: I need to understand your tags and authors. If the card (i.e. its internal link, credentials, miss representation, miss tag, ect...) is a main point of contention I will ask to see it after round.

Ks: I enjoy a good K as much as the next person, but it needs to have a clear link to the AC/NC/Resolution. The only exception is Nietzsche Ks. I really don't want to hear your generic Nietzsche K. If you have one prepped and you think you can change my mind you are welcome to run it I will ultimately vote on the flow.

Plans/CPs: Honestly, just a fan.

T: I will vote on theory.

Most Importantly: Just be yourself. Run the arguments you want to run and I will listen, flow, and enjoy them.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after round.

Lauren Gilbert Paradigm

WDM Valley '20

Sophomore Throwdown 2019:

I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I have the most experience with framework, tricks, and theory. I would say, in general, I've made most of my judging decisions in the past based off of the framework debate and look to that as the highest layer. With that being said, if you don't go for winning framework and instead just go for turns or something, I'll definitely still vote on it.

On LARP: I don't really read it, but have no problem voting for it as long as:

- you win util

-you read and extend sufficient evidence and link chains

-you do impact weighing with your opponent's offense (whether that be turns or case offense)

On K's: I don't really read them, but also don't have a problem voting for them. With that being said, if I don't understand your argument and you're super sketchy with it in CX, the chances of me voting on it are significantly diminished. With that being said, I do know the basic argument surrounding most K's, so unless you're reading something super obscure you'll be fine. Also, keep in mind that I judge most of the time based off of the framework debate, and the ROB is similarly a framing mechanism that I'm inclined to vote on if you utilize it.

Some other general notes:

1) I'm fine with speed, but I ask that you only go as fast as you can go while still being comprehensible

2) I love Spinoza-- if you have Spinoza prep, I would suggest you read it

3) If you know anything about the way that other Valley debaters debate/ have debated, I would say that I align pretty well with them (but I'm definitely not as tricky or inclined to vote off of tricks as Conal)

4) Your speaks will be determined based off of how good I think your strategic choices are and also closely related to how much time you spend reading off of a doc (for example, if you spend the entire 2N reading a doc prepared pre-round and the flow is super messy because you aren't actually interacting with arguments that happened in the round itself, I will be very annoyed)

5) If you read disclosure theory, I won't not vote on it, but I generally don't think that disclosure is a good practice for the activity and probably won't be inclined to vote on arguments about the educational quality of disclosure if your opponent makes any attempt at responding to them

6) I think there is more to framework debate than TJF's, so if you extend TJF's as a reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's, I would really like if you extended some other general justifications for your framework as well

7) If you read the Hoppe 97 card back to me, I will be annoyed

8) I generally am more inclined to like you as a debater if you aren't dismissive, rude, or mean to your opponent (extra points for being a decent person :) )

Ammeriahya Gonzalez Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

RJ Gonzalez Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Miles Gray Paradigm

8 rounds

Debater: UC Berkeley; Coach: The Harker School

I aim to judge debates as a neutral observer concerned only with the technical interaction of arguments and evidence. In theory, this can accommodate any argument or content. In practice, I have found some arguments hold up to the “tech > truth” standard far better than others.

About me and my beliefs:

(1) I believe debate is good.
(2) I am most experienced and interested in policy literature.
(3) I find arguments for being intentionally untopical far weaker than their responses.
(4) Nuclear war and human extinction are disproportionately more concerning to me than impacts of lower magnitude.

I will attempt to give speaker points that are sympathetic to inflation. You can get better points by doing judge instruction, avoiding frivolous theory arguments, comparing evidence, and giving clear, organized speeches. I will kick the CP if necessary. The aff must give nearly-unanswered instructions prior to the 2AR for me to consider otherwise.

LD: My beliefs about reading a plan don’t translate as harshly to LD. My beliefs about theory, or preference for a lack thereof, do.

Andrew Harding Paradigm

8 rounds

***Georgetown PF Tournament Update Bottom of Page***

Andrew James Harding

Add me on the email chain: andrewjharding1@gmail.com

TL/DR: First year college student with 7 years of debate experience. Tech>Truth. I'm okay with speed, but I need pen time. Plans and K Affs are cool. Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and legitimate theory are cool. Tricks and non-basic phil are not cool. Performance args can be cool, but you'll have to make sure I fully understand the arg. AFF must have offense on case in the 2AR. I'll vote neg on presumption. I default to competing interps. I'll drop the debater. Fairness is an IL to education. CX is binding. CP texts are binding. I'll vote on condo if abuse is clearly shown.

Quick Prefs (1-5 Scale) 1=Best, 5=Worst:

Traditional AFFs (LD) - 2

Policy AFFs (CX/LD) - 1

Middle Road AFFs (CX/LD) - 2

Critical AFFs (CX/LD) - 2

Traditional NEGs (LD) - 2

Philosophy (LD) - 4

Topicality (CX/LD) - 2

Disadvantages (CX/LD) - 1

Counter-Plans (CX/LD) - 2

Kritiks (CX/LD) - 2

Theory (CX/LD) - 3/4

Performance (CX/LD) - 4

General Public Forum (PF) - 2

Speaker Points (25-30 Scale):

30-29.5 - Excellent, late elims

29.4-29 - Great, mid elims

28.9-28.5 - Good, early elims

28.4-28 - Okay, might break

27.9-27.5 - Decent, won't break

27.4-27 - Bad, won't break

26.9-26 - Very bad, won't break

<25.9 - Disgraceful, you've engaged in inappropriate behavior, won't break

Background: I graduated from The Woodlands HS in Houston, TX. I'm currently an undergraduate student at the George Washington University with intentions to major in Asian Studies and International Affairs, as well as minor in Political Science and History. I'm also an active member of their Parliamentary debate team. I debated all four years in HS, competing in CX for 2.5 years as a 2A/1N and LD for 1.5 years. For other events, I competed in DX for 4 years and occasionally other IE events. I've qualified to TFA State for 3 years in CX, LD, and DX. I've qualified in DX to the TOC and NSDA Nationals twice. In CX and LD, I'm familiar with and have ran both policy and critical arguments, mainly based off of Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony during senior year.

General: I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy. That being said, debate is also a game of persuasion. It is your job to persuade me that I should prefer your arguments over your opponent. I expect ethical discourse and effective argumentation. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be ran properly. I don't care about how you sit or dress, but make sure you're respectful of your opponent and listen to any request they may have to make the round better for everyone. I would prefer to see a good technical and strategic strategy that has been well prepared. I don't want you to just read the case and prep your teammate gave you. Don't assume I know what you're saying. My main focus has been on policy-type arguments, but I'm always open to new experiences and learning. I like to give long RFDs and many comments as I want people to be the best debaters they can be. Don't feel bad if you need to ask me to shut up so you can leave the round.


General AFF: I shouldn't have to guess what the 1AC is about. I don't want to hear many new case cards, for I believe the 2AC should incorporate as much of the 1AC offense as possible. T can be a voter and should always be covered well. The 2AC should be: case, T, then the 1NC order. There should be something on the flow against every off case position. I want to see ADVs kicked as the debate moves along. The 1AR is tough, but coverage of all remaining off case is expected or there should be some arguments made that can address multiple off at once. 2AR MUST include heavy case analysis. If the case debate is lost or not warranted well, I'll presume neg.

Policy AFFs: Love them. I expect to hear inherency either on top of the 1AC or within each ADV. There needs to be an IL to every IPX. Solvency must explain what your specific plan solves your ADVs. If the USFG is your actor, then you must defend that USFG action is key and/or good. That doesn't mean you must justify EVERYTHING the government does, but you must defend the position that the government is the best actor to solve problems. Big stick impacts should probably o/w deontologist impacts if you want access to impact calc.

Middle of the road AFFs: I'm okay with them, but I'm not too familiar with them. For the most part, everything said about "Policy AFFs" above apply here. Frame impact calc however you desire, but I'm to suspect SV is the way to go here.

Critical AFFs: Love them. The AFF must be in direction of the resolution with evidence that links the two together. I must hear an advocacy statement, for I need to know what your AC calls for what I would be voting for. While I enjoy fancy taglines, I must be able to identify the purpose of each card. Impact framing and/or ROJ ought to be included. Don't assume I know your literature. There's a good chance I won't, but if you articulate well enough, there shouldn't be an issue. On T debates, you must give me reason why I should weigh case against T or I don't think you'll get my ballot.

General NEGs: The negative shouldn't walk into round without a skeleton of a strategy ready to go. I enjoy a good 1-off K debate as well as a 6-off policy debate. While I understand the strategical value of reading as many offs as possible (I've done the same), it's nice to read 3-4 off that allow for in-depth analysis in the negative block. The 1NC MUST address case. Not doing so will make me believe you're attempting to skirt away from actual clash and just hope to win on overloading on off case. Case turns are wonderful. However, a win is a win and while I won't like you, I'll listen to you. I should hear case in the block. Kicking arguments that don't advocate for a world outside the AC are totally fine and I expect it. The 2NR should only go for one off (or two if it's a CP with a DA for the NB) AS WELL as at least one case argument. Again, you do you at your own risk.

T: Love it. If you have a shell that the AC links well into, I want to hear this debate. I will listen to squirrelly shells, but I highly doubt I'll vote on them. There must be an interp, violation, standards and voters. Including "Drop the debater" is optional as you obviously want me to even if you don't read it. The block should answer the line-by-line effectively and show why the AC is skewing the debate. Don't read T with 8 other off and argue "wE hAve nO gRounD" as I'll probably buy 2AC defense easily, so pick your standards carefully. I need a TVA and caselist in the 2NC, even if they ask for one in cross as I won't flow cross. I default depth>breadth if there is no debate over the matter.

DA: Love them. I absolutely love politics DAs (base, political capital, midterms, elections, down-ballot, congress, courts, international affairs) as I know this area the best, but DAs in general are nice. A DA should include at least 4 cards (U, L, IL, IPX), but 3 is doable. I'm not a fan of 2 carded DAs. More than 4 are cool. Inherency/Uniqueness should be as recent as possible. If your U ev is from 2016 and the 2AC spreads through a N/U card from 2019, you're not winning the DA. The link should be as specific as possible as I'll believe the plan would trigger it, but I understand the use of generic links. However, there's a good chance I'll buy "AFF not k2" arguments if the link is generic. IL must connect to the IPX.

CP: I'm okay with them. I didn't run them often, but I understand how they function and will happily listen to them. 3 parts: text, solvency, NB. There must be a clearly defined CP text THAT IS BINDING. Meaning, if your text refers to granting parole to Syrian refugees, but the AC is about climate refugees, you better hope the AC let's you getting away with it as it's up to the AFF to call you out on it. If the 2AC doesn't test it, then they missed their chance and I suppose it's up to you to do as you please. It'll reflect in your speaks though. If you attempt to change the text after being called out on it, I will not only dock speaks as you're creating an unfair burden on the 2AC, but I will only consider the CP as what the text says it's doing. After the text, I need to hear a solvency advocate through a from of evidence. This evidence should explain why the CP will solve the issues of the AFF. A net benefit MUST be attached to the CP. While I'll expect a DA, you do you if you have another idea, but know it's a risk. Losing the NB means I no longer consider the CP. If you're going for the CP in the 2NR, you must also go for your NB.

K: Love them. I'm most familiar with critical literature addressing capitalism, hegemony, and biopower. With that being said, I understand the basic concepts on most kritiks. I'm not well-versed in postmodernist thought, but I will listen to the best of my ability. You'll have to do a lot of work in the overview to make sure I know what's going on. Kritiks needs a link, impact and alternative. I REALLY want framing (ROJ/IPX), but it isn't required to win. The more specific the link the better. However, there must be SOME relation to the AC. Meaning, I'll listen to state-bad links, but that would mean the AC defends the state. The block must include heavy link analysis. There must be a clearly defined alt. I'm not a fan of vague alts or reject alts. I want to be introduced to a new way of thinking or acting. If you're going for the K, I need very, very strong alt work. HOWEVER, I will buy the K as a linear DA with the link and impact if I'm told to. I want to know my role in the debate in order to influence how I weigh impacts.

Theory: I'm usually not a fan. The only theories I've ran as a 2A are: disclosure, 50 states fiat, condo bad and "generic links". I don't really enjoy theory debates as I believe they distract from debating the content of the debate at hand. However, I do believe theory can be necessary when there is legitimate concern over actions that have occurred during a round. This may be my LD experiences creeping in, but I believe the negative should only advocate for one conditional world. However, I doubt I will buy condo if there are two condo args. Three is pushing it, and four makes me heavily favor voting on condo bad. I don't like tricks debate as it completely distract from debating the issues at hand. If you run theory, I need an interp, violation, standards and voters. Run theory at your own risk and only if there are legitimate concerns.

Performance: I'm okay with it, but I may not be the best to judge for these arguments. As a white, cis, heterosexual male, I will not able to fully understand performance if it is based off of personal experience due to the privilege society has presented to me. While this doesn't mean I won't fairly weigh the arguments, I can't promise that I'll either understand or analyze the argument as someone else could, but I will do the best I can. I would want an explanation for the performance so I can have a general idea of what to expect and to look for. Make sure I know how you want me to evaluate the argument, mainly through framing.


General AFF: Same as CX. I think AC under-views/spikes are a waste of time. Can they strategically preempt NC offense? Sure. However, I'd like to imagine a good debater to just read arguments that don't violate any spikes. If that happens, you've wasted valuable time that could've generated additional arguments. Rather than reading an under-view, I would much rather hear an additional contention/advantage. This doesn't mean you can't read under-views/spikes, but I won't be too pleased. If you think you can get me to change my mind on this, go for it, for I love learning new arguments and strategy.

Traditional AFFs: You should use the entire 6 minutes. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a Value (V) and Value Criterion/Standard (VC) with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. I'd like to hear, at least, two contentions with three being preferable. There should be, at least, three cards per contention with four being preferable. I would prefer depth over breadth.

Policy AFFs: Same as CX.

Middle of the road AFFs: Same as CX.

Critical AFFs: Same as CX.

General NEG: Same as CX. NR should collapse the flow. If you're running multiple off in the NC, I expect you to go for 1 in the NR (or CP+DA/NB). In the NR, I will only accept new arguments IN RESPONSE to any 1AR offense (ex: Perm ATs). There also shouldn't be many new cards read in the NR, if any at all.

Traditional NEGs: The NC case should take around 4-5 minutes to get through with 2-3 minutes left to do the line-by-line on the AC. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a V and VC with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. If your FW is the same as the AC's or you want to weigh the debate under AC FW, make that clear so I know that not including your own FW is a strategical move. You should have at least 1 contention, preferably 2, with at least 2 cards per contention. While that isn't required (you could shotgun 7 contentions if you really want to), I would prefer more depth over breadth. When on the AC, there should be significant engagement with FW. I expect you to cover the flow. That doesn't mean have an answer for every card (Would be nice though), but there should be arguments made on every AC contention.

PHIL: I like phil, I just haven't been exposed to it well enough to fully comprehend and judge rounds focused on phil arguments. That being said, an argument is an argument and I'll flow it. If you're going for phil arguments in the NR, you REALLY need to explain and warrant the arguments. Assume I know nothing you're talking about, no matter how "basic" it could be. Same regards to weighing, extensions, and warrants apply here too.

T: Same as CX. TVA of the AFF should be in NC. I'm more likely to buy 1AR basic defense due to the timing allocation for the 1AR. However, if you go for T in the NR, I'll have a higher threshold for 2AR analysis. No need to make the "Drop the Debater" argument; I know you want me to.

DA: Same as CX.

CP: Same as CX.

K: Same as CX.

Theory: Same as CX. Please don't waste my time with frivolous theory. Sure, I'll flow it and you can win with it, but I will set a high threshold for you to win the shell and your speaks will reflect my displeasure. Any "tricks" fall under this category. While I don't like disclosure theory, I think the debate could be fair.

Performance: Same as CX.

*** PF/Georgetown (10/12-13)***

General: I did not compete in PF during my time in HS, but I've judged local PF tournaments at the MS and HS level. Just like in policy, weighing, clash, warranted extensions, line-by-line, and strategical arguments are expected and will be rewarded. If there is a specific framework you want me to value, make the argument. I'll default to util if no FW arguments are made. I don't care about speaking style, speed, or general presentation; I vote off arguments that you win on the flow. That doesn't mean you ought to be rude or ignore the value of persuasion, rather I'm making clear that arguments o/w presentation. I'd prefer for you to NOT read policy-type arguments, but do as you please. Cross-Fire periods should be respectful and fairly balanced; If, for whatever reason, I must intervene during Cross Fire to maintain order and/or the integrity of the event, both/all debaters will be given 25 speaks. I will presume CON if there is no extended and warranted PRO offense coming out of the Final Focus. Any framing arguments shape the round and I value them over contention level analysis. However, you WILL (probably) NOT win my ballot if you just win FW. You must apply the FW to the contention level debate so there can be 1) weighing and 2) world comparison. If no framing is given, the debate comes down to contention level. Arguments must be extended and warranted out for them to have a chance of appearing on my ballot. I expect weighing - please don't make me intervene on which impacts I prefer. Arguments should be reasonable, meaning there ought to either be an established and/or implied link to the resolution that makes logical sense. Don't assume I have background information about your arguments; it's your job to inform and persuade me. New arguments made in the rebuttals and/or final focus won't be flowed.

First Constructive: Establish the case. Include any framing arguments.

Second Constructive: I expect offense to be extended, warranted, and weighed. There should be good coverage of the flow with line-by-line coverage. While new offense is technically allowed, I'd prefer you to use evidence from the first constructive speeches to generate offense and/or defense.

Summary: Start collapsing the flow and focus heavily on weighing and world comparison. While line-by-line is always important, you should start crystallizing the main arguments in the world. Meaning, you don't need to win every single argument on the flow, but with whatever arguments you'e going for, you should always cover the line-by-line.

Final Focus: Voters. Weigh the arguments you're going for with what your opponents are going for. World comparison is expected. Line-by-line still matters; don't forget to balance time between offense AND defense with the arguments you're going for.

Ben Harris Paradigm

Top level: What you say matters most. Good cards are very important, but spin and your articulation of your arguments is what you are held to. It's about strategy and what you say. If the only thing I held you to was your cards, then there would be no strategy in debate, just cutting cards.

I judge by the flow. I will listen to any argument (except racism/ableism/etc. good) regardless of its truth so be sure to answer it. Tech over truth all day long. I mostly do policy, but I have done some of PF and LD for the last 5 years. I am fine with speed. I will be keeping track of time. Impact calculus is critical to winning a round. I love scrappy debate. Finally, an argument that is not extended or answered is a dropped argument and so a true argument. Don't shadow extend arguments, actually explain it as you extend it, and don't just use buzz words.

Add me to the Email Chain: benharrisdebate@gmail.com

Ethics challenges: They stop rounds.


K's - A good K is always good. I will buy any argument here as well. I am moderately well versed in the literature, but that does not mean you can get away with not explaining your K. Perms can still work with K's. Lastly, Cap is a non-unique disadvantage, I don't love it but will vote on it if necessary.

K/Performance Affs: Utilize your performance as offense if it works, but I am not really persuaded by these arguments. I think that the aff should defend an advocacy statement (probably a topical plan or the resolution), but I can be persuaded otherwise. I love framework and will happily vote on it. Go beyond your prewritten blocks and actually debate the substance of the argument. Nothing is better than a 2a who answers a bunch of framework arguments that the neg never made.

T- If it is a topic generic aff, then it is topical. Otherwise, I will buy T. RVI's might be one of the few exceptions to the rule I stated at the beginning, I hate them, but I will vote off them if they are dropped.

DA's- Great. Love them. Will vote on them.

CP- I am a 2N, so I don't really find them abusive, but again any argument goes. I love Word Pics and a good, nuanced, one will help your speaks. Generic CP's are nothing special. Consult counterplans are the one kind that I feel are cheaty, but I can be persuaded otherwise. The perm should be in the 2AR 9 times out of 10.

Presumption- I only put this in here to say that I buy presumption more than most judges. I think that it is an underused argument that is actually great.

Prep: Starts and stops when you tell me to, but do not steal prep.


Same as above really. I am fine with speed, but if you spread you should flash.

Value: I don't love value debates very much and really default to Util, but if your value wins you the round then go for it.

As a policy debater, I prefer progressive LD, but I am fine with traditional LD as well.

For all forms of debate: Just do what you are comfortable with, I will listen to it, and if it is well debated, I will happily vote on it.

William Honea Paradigm

8 rounds

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

Texas Tech University 2019- Present

Speed- Doubt you can outspread my pen. But it by some chance you do I’ll let you know.


Affs- Read one.

K Affs- Provide a logical framework for me to evaluate.

T- Aff has burden to prove topicality. I will grant aff reasonability if there is a bright line given. Otherwise I default competing interp.

DA- Obviously

CP- Fine

K’s- Don’t assume I know your author. That being said I can probably easily grasp it. Provide a role of the ballot.

Theory- Theory is fine as long as a good voters are given. Condo debates can be fun.

Ben Honoroff Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Lucas Humes Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi, my name is Lucas Humes, but you already know that so lets get to the MEAT:

K's- Do not run K's, that you're not familiar with, meaning make sure you know the philosophy that surrounds your Kritical position. I will vote for K's if you give me a reason to prefer the ALT/if you can prove that the underlying issue outweighs the impacts on the flow.

SPEED- I personally dislike speed and believe it gates people out of policy debate and would direct you to talk at a reasonable pace that could be understood by any person that has never competed in debate (more specifically policy). That does not mean you will lose the round if you spread, but if I can't understand you I won't flow/vote on it.

Conditionality- I'm on the fence with CONDO, personally I believe that conditional arguments are made only in an effort skew time. However, I will not vote you down for kicking something so long as you do it BEFORE THE 1AR, doing so in the 2NR is clearly abusive. I will accept theory arguments from both sides (condo good/bad), and will flow for the team that presents the best case on that issue within the round.

Topicality- I believe in "old policy" theory meaning that the aff should be topical and that the T is the first thing that should be voted on when making my final decision. With that being said only run T's if you can prove that actual ground is lost, don't just run T for the sake of running T. As far as affirmative should be concerned, if you prove no ground was lost then I will not vote on the T, but you MUST answer it.

Counter Plans- CP's need to be untopical, if you run a topical CP I will view it as a reason to uphold the resolution and thus vote aff on the cp. Perm is not an advocacy and shouldn't be treated as such, it is a test of mutual exclusivity nothing more.

Disadvantages- This in my opinion is how the negative wins the round, however as stated above is not the only way the negative could win the round. But if you prove post-aff world is worse than status quo then I vote neg.

Case- I will vote for neg if they prove aff doesn't solve effectively (solvency deficits) or if they can't solve at all (no solvency). I will also vote for neg on the case flow if they prove the issue is resolved by status quo.

Framework- You should be framing every argument, if you don't give me a reason to vote on something I won't.

Burdens- Aff: Prove that the world needs your plan and that it actually solves for the advantages you list. Neg: Prove that status quo is better, post plan world is worse, that the cp solves better, or that the affirmative is untopical.

With that said, I'm a very lax judge and will vote on whatever round you have. Have fun and try to learn something about the resolution!

Maria Ibrahim Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Evan Jones Paradigm

Tulsa-Union '17

MSU '21

*updated for 17' Glenbrooks*

Top level

My preferences exist, but I’ll attempt to be as objective as possible. 

I'm best for a CP+DA strategy but would prefer you do what you do best. 

Warranted evidence comparison is the most important thing regardless of strategy.

Debate is a game, don't make the game a harmful place for someone else. 

T-USFG & Planless

My ideological sway is toward T-USFG but I will do my best to not let that get in the way.

Topical versions of the aff are persuasive and helpful.

Sometimes these debates mistake the forest for the individual trees. Having the best impact comparison is the key. 

Topicality w/ plan

I love a good T debate.

My default is competing interps and how the evidence interacts. Reasonability is not a question of the aff being reasonable it's if the counter interp is reasonable. 

To win T there needs to be a clear distinction between the kind of topic each interpretation creates. 

In round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse, but if impacted out that changes



The more specific the better

A lot of DA scenarios are preposterous but we discuss them normally. Smart arguments that poke holes in the internal link chains can reduce DA risk quite a bit

Zero risk is hard, not impossible, super small risk of DA can be written off indistinguishable from zero

Turns case arguments are persuasive when well explained (preferably carded), they typically depend on the link being accessed

The link is generally more important than uniqueness can be persuaded the other way on this question

Bring back line by line


Same as DA, the more specific the better

Not going to judge kick for you

If it basically does the aff CP theory becomes a bit more persuasive (plan plus, consult, processes)

If there is textual and functional competitiveness then CP theory is not as persuasive, but am not ideologically positioned against it


I’m down – high theory stuff needs a bit more explanation because I don’t usually know what’s going on.

Please no conceptual 3 minute overview

Please no excessive buzzwords in place of explanation

9 times out of 10 it IS your Baudrillard. 

If I don’t know what the alternative is doing the chances of it winning the round are very low.

Roll of the Ballot arguments tend to be self-serving or just a sentence that identifies the controversy of the round. I don’t think they get either side anywhere.

I could vote on an impacted out perf con argument.


Aditya Joshi Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ian Kimbrell Paradigm

8 rounds

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016.

The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like analysis of warrants. Clash between competing warrants is makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it done within the confines of fun, friendliness and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

Jaden Lanza Paradigm

8 rounds

State good ------------------------------x--fuck off statist

Nah, for real if you have any questions just ask. I can handle most anything but just make the most reasonable and persuasive arguments. Spread if you want but send me your cards. Don't make silly or superfluous arguments you don't understand and have fun!

Caleb Lawson Paradigm

8 rounds

i go by alex, they/them.

a priori issues: respect everyone involved in the debate. if you're being a jerk, it will be reflected rather drastically in your speaks. if you're blatantly racist, sexist, don't respect pronouns, etc., it will be reflected rather drastically on which team wins the round :)

general notes: i vote off the flow by creating a story for why each team wins the debate. whichever story forces me to do the least work wins the round. i consider myself halfway between truth and tech; dropped arguments are true arguments, but you still have to explain what they are before i'll consider them. if i have a choice, i'm not going to vote on an arg i can't explain to the other team. i tend to lean slightly toward policy args, but i've read all sorts of stuff, so ks and k affs are a go (99% of teams reading t are woefully incompetent). the way you present your args doesn't matter to me until you or the other team tells me it should.

disads: i like em. read em. specific links are neat-o. specific link turns are neat-o-er. debates where teams read both are neat-o-est. there is such a thing as no risk, and i can be persuaded of it (probably much more easily than a lot of other judges can). do your impact calc.

cps: if you feel like cheating, go for it, but be prepared to justify that. i'm not super willing to kick it for you, but if the aff drops the ball on it then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

t: read it. i like it. if it's a time suck, i'll be sad. if the team has read the same aff all year, it's probably quite a bit harder for you to win this debate. i don't think t is an rvi, but then again i've also won debates on rvis, so do whatever you want

fw: i enjoy a good framework debate a lot. please do it well. while i am admittedly a bit biased toward framework, i am still receptive to k affs and have read them myself, so i have an understanding of what k teams need to do to beat it. don't change your aff for me.

theory: is cool. read it. i can be persuaded to vote on any of it.

condo: it's my personal opinion that a persuasive condo arg coming from the aff requires full commitment from the 1ar forward. anything else leads to these debates being thoroughly undersubstantiated past the block.

Cheyenne Lee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gavin Lott Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Vinson Lu Paradigm

8 rounds

email - luvi@gosaints.org

Have any questions? Ask me.

TL;DR - Contextualize your arguments. Frame and weigh your opponent's arguments against yours, and explain why you've won. Do what you do as long as you do it well.

I have debated CX for St. Andrew's Episcopal School for three years and am currently a senior. Though I will attempt to evaluate the round from as objective of a stance as possible, I believe that no one can divorce themselves from their preexisting dispositions. Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:

- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful for the debate space. Please do not engage in problematic pedagogy or rhetoric.

- Although I am open to alternative models of adjudication, I default to resolving argumentation based on line-by-line argumentation. This means that engaging in evidence-based clash, comparing evidence, and handling the flow is crucial to winning.

- Debate is fun because the people are fun. There's a difference between being passionate and being mean.

- You do what you're comfortable doing - my role is not to impose my views on you. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.

- That being said, it is hard to make a decision absent a coherent understanding of the argument - while speed is fine, clarity is necessary. Things like long analytical blocks, theory shells, and the like probably shouldn't be read at your maximum speed.

- An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. It is hard for me to vote for your argument if your argument isn't an argument. People that articulate well-warranted and coherent arguments tend to do better than people that rely on blippy analysis. Likewise, nuanced and thoughtful positions are likely to be more persuasive than sweeping generalizations.

Policy Affs

- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than some people would think. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.

- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.

- Analytical arguments are wholly underutilized in taking apart badly constructed internal links.

Critical Affs/Performance Affs

- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly. K affs are fine in front of me, but some rounds have incoherent explanations of what their advocacy does.

- The affirmative should probably be in the direction of the topic.

- Framework is a legitimate strategy and fairness is a legitimate impact. Clash-based impacts are more persuasive than education-based ones, though you should go for what you usually go for. Affirmative teams are best served mitigating and impact turning negative impacts by explaining why their alternative model of debate is preferable.


- If there's something I've learned from going for a politics DA way too often, it's that your scenario is probably false. That being said, specific analysis is important in selling your scenario. Be detailed in your explanation of the link level and the rest will hopefully follow.

- I prefer that you contexualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative (turns case arguments are extremely useful!)

- I find that intrinsicness is a fascinating argument.


- Most counterplans are alright, although I tend to think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable.

- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a good theory debate.

- Conditionality is probably good to an extent. There's probably a difference between one condo and infinite condo, but anything within that gradient is probably murkier.

- I won't remember to judge kick if you don't remind me.


- I default to competing interpretations until told otherwise.

- People tend to forget that these theoretical arguments have impacts; these debates become incredibly hard to evaluate absent impact weighing.

- Technical work on these flows are important. I like theory when debated well, but absent strong tech the theory flow becomes a mess.


- Links of omission or to the state are probably very weak links to the affirmative at best.

- I may not have more than a surface-level understanding of your theory. You should assume that I don't and take the time to explain your theory comprehensively.

- Most good kritiks both implicate the methodology of the affirmative and propose a competing practice. Why are the plan/the assumptions of the plan a bad thing? How does your alternative resolve this?

- The alternative is usually the weakest part of the K in the sense that these methodologies are not explained very cohesively sometimes. Be clear about the alternative world you present and we should be good.

- There needs to be framing/calculus on the impacts of the critique. How these arguments are weighed depends on the framework presented; I will default to util when weighing all impacts but any decent framing debate should be able to change that.

- Affs should go for cap good against the cap K if their aff was built to do that. There's nothing wrong with going hard right and impact turning the K. Similarly, small affs built for the perm in the 2NR should execute their strategy like it's built for (provided there's a path to a ballot there).

Brenden Lucas Paradigm

8 rounds

Brenden Lucas


Frosh @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

Updated for KCKCC 2019

This is kind of an evolving document as I judge more and develop more concrete opinions

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State (Go Bears!)

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. I think the affirmative should defend a topical plan text and negative should respond with why that plan is bad via Disads, Counterplans, Case turns, whatever.

T debates are under utilized imo.

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round of any individual preferences you want to eek out of me.

Being funny is a good way of getting higher speaks.

If you feel that debating in front of me is out of the question, strike me, please.

Madeline Martinson Paradigm

8 rounds

I just really like fun debates😊

That being said, don’t be rude.

Ian Mattson Paradigm

8 rounds

Debated for La Salle for 4 years, currently at Elon University

3 years of being a 2A/1N in policy, one year of being a one off K debater in LD, also was double 2's for half the immigration topic

Tl;dr - I will vote on anything, so you do whatever you do best

Good explanation is important

Fast is good when clear

Analytics are good (most of the time)

Theory is good kinda

Politics DA is meh

High theory is meh

2NR ranks are T/K/DA+CP in that order

K Affs can be good

FW is good

I would like to be on the email chain: imattson@elon.edu

Debate is always educational and almost always good.

Everyone wants to say they're tab but they're not, so I'm just gonna give y'all the way I think about arguments. I don't think that necessitates a change in strategy, but more in extension of arguments. You do you.


Theory is fine as long as it's not fringe. Tell an abuse story and why that made it impossible for you to win/participate in the round. Coherent stories and examples of ground loss, etc. are good.

LD People: Disclosure is good, you should do it. But if you're reading disclosure and the violation is "I messaged them on facebook X mins before the round and they didn't respond" I will give you a 25 regardless of whether you go for it or win. This is a terrible model for debate and whoever thought it was a good idea had no sense of personal space. Email or just, maybe, show up to the rooms 30 minutes before so you can disclose in person. Wild, I know.


Mostly the usual here, good links are better, impact calc is a must, please explain the turns instead of just putting it at the top of the block overview. Case specific DA's that you clearly did good prep for sound much better than a generic topic DA with a different link.

I think the politics DA is a terrible argument, if we're being honest with each other. That being said, in (almost) every policy round my 1NR was five minutes of politics. I will understand and vote on it, albeit begrudingly. If you have 3 internal links to get to an impact I don't hesitate to vote aff with some analysis on why risk of a link doesn't trigger said impact. 1 internal link is ideal, ya know, like a normal dis-ad.

Pls attack internal links, especially if there's more than 1. I promise they're bad. Unless they aren't, but I have yet to see a politics DA that has a good one.


More of the usual, make sure you explain why the CP solves case and why it doesn't link to the NB, and why the perm can't resolve the NB. Cheating CP's (Consult/Delay) are usually bad but it's the other teams job to call you out, if they don't then I'm not doing it for them. Just explain the mechanism and how it's different from the aff.


T and FW are different. T when done right is my favorite (and in my opinion, the most fun and strategic) 2NR. Extend interp/violation/(whatever you want to call impacts to T) and we'll be good. T is mostly tech so please try and keep it clean.

Some other thoughts:

Explain reasonability right please.

If there's no counter-interp it's literally impossible to win.

Generic shells are fine, just don't blow through blocks that you read against every aff on the topic. Slow down a little and contextualize to the aff.

There will be no RVI's under any circumstances.


Also gonna keep it fully transparent with y'all, FW is probably a true argument. That being said, I spent the entirety of my senior year not affirming the resolution and had no relation to the topic. Make of that what you will.

FW is about lbl and explaining why your model of debate is good. Relation to the topic makes it significantly easier to win as a K aff. Impact turns to either sides education arguments are good. DA's to interpretations are good. If you don't have a competing model of debate I'm incapable of voting for you, even if you win every piece of offense to their interpretation. Link turns are good when explained right, impact turns to education are great when explained right. TVA's are terminal defense to counter-interps and any solvency deficits are just what neg ground is, so please explain why it is literally impossible to bring the thesis of your aff into a topical discussion. Or have a solid relation to the topic and have a reason your method wouldn't be able to function with fiat/the USfg/etc.


When I did policy, I read exclusively Cap and FW against K affs, Neolib and Security against most policy affs. When in LD I exclusively went one off queerpess, you do with that whatever you want to.

K's are good when: they have good links; an alternative with reasonable solvency; a framework that supports their thesis; impact turns to the aff; are well explained (big important). One or more of those things is always ideal.

K's are bad when: they have bad/generic links; are explained badly; have arbitrary alts that get no explanation; don't interact with the aff at all at any level(biggest important).

Please make distinctions between pre/post fiat impacts and the way I should evaluate them, otherwise I do it myself and one of y'all won't like the conclusion I come to, so make it for me please. Please contextualize to the affirmative, otherwise the link story becomes weak. Please know what you're talking about, otherwise I probably won't be voting for you. If the other team knows more than you about said criticism, there's a high chance I won't be voting for you. Just know your stuff please.

Reps K's are fine, alts that are just reject the aff ~work~ but y'all can do better.

High theory is meh, I don't think myself or any of y'all understand it but ya know, not gonna generalize. If you read Baudrillard and it's the same 3-4 cards I've seen my entire debate career I will be sad. Don't copy Mich KM. Or South Eugene. Or whomstever you're copying. Be original, it makes everything better.

PS: I've read baedan, Baudrillard, Warren, Wilderson, Halberstam, Puar, Winnubst, DnG, Giroux, Ahmed, and various security authors. Don't skirt explanation because I've read your author of choice, if it isn't in the round I'm not going to evaluate it.

Aff teams: if the aff is soft left the permutation is usually a good bet, contest links because they're probably bad, have defense of the rhetoric of the aff, give me a reason to prefer being a policymaker, etc. Most K's can be dismantled pretty easily if you just use your brain a little instead of reading more cards. Call out blippy DA's to things like the perm or FW.

Critical Affs

Hey I've read one of these! For a whole year! And it had no relation to the topic!

Regardless, I am totally fine with these. You need good answers to FW, reasons why their education is bad and yours is not, reasons why the TVA literally can't exist under their interp, etc. Know your lit. Explain what the aff does and why I should sign my ballot aff. Affs that want the ballot for the reading of the 1AC aren't persuasive. Have a method I can vote for, or why the epist is good, or whatever. Give me something. Please.

Performance: I never was ~too~ involved with these so take that into account. Explain why the performance matters/what it gets you/why and how I should evaluate it. As a sage once said: "Reading an eDgY speech doc is not a performance." I wholly agree with that, garnering offense off of the reading of the 1AC/K is fine but don't say it's a performance unless it is. Embodying the method in round would be considered a performance if done right.

KvK - I did none of these until my senior year. I've grasped it but still probably don't understand a lot of the nuances that go into it, especially if I'm not familiar with the lit, so please explain why things matter. If it's a methods debate I think it's very easy to win mutual exclusitivity on the perm, but that might just be me.

Intersectionality can be a good argument if you have the warrants for it, randomly claiming it probably isn't gonna fly and is super susceptible to links.


Why is disclosing speaks a thing? Don't ask, I'll just make them lower than I was originally going to.

Cross can be good when utilized right. Don't be an ass, you can be sarcastic or whatever I honestly don't care. Bring the concessions up in a speech or it doesn't mean anything. If you make me chuckle it's probably good.

You can use whatever pronouns you want for me. If I slip up and say "guys" it's a Philly thing that is gender neutral. Misgendering people is just like, rude? It's not that hard to just say they/y'all. If anyone has an issue with that then they can bring it up, otherwise you just seem ignorant/mean/oblivious to me, which are all bad looks.

Sorry if I missed anything, feel free to email me with questions, it's at the top

Esther Mergerson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Wendy Muir Paradigm

8 rounds

Background: I have debated LD for about 2 years in highschool. I debated PFD for 1 year and am a two time qualifier to the NSDA national tournament both times in WSD.

LD: I’m a very Traditional Judge. I don’t want to see any spreading, speed is fine but if I can’t understand you I won’t flow you. I love to see clash in Rounds and during crossfire. However, if you bring something up in crossfire you must bring it up in your next Speech or I won’t flow it. In LD I want to see logical arguments however I’m fine with you using common sense arguments however I do wanna see evidence backing up these arguments

PFD: Like LD I’m a traditional judge I wanna see clash in both crossfire and speeches. I am fine with speed, but not spreading again if I can’t understand you I won’t flow you! If you do bring something up in crossfire I want you to bring it up in your next speech or I won’t consider it! In PFD I want to see you use not just evidence but also logic in your cases.

WSD: Being someone who loves the style of WSD I will traditionally go by the rules (I.e. conversational speaking, avoid traditional debate lingo, etc.) but overall don’t be straight rude to your opponents it makes you look bad and just be courteous to your opponents.


-Stock Issues Judge – The AFF must have all five stock issues to win the round

-Counterplans must be competitive/unique

-Kritiks/DAs are fine

-No Theory, Topicality is fine though



-Offtime Roadmaps are good

-No spreading

-Crystalized Voters

Justine Musk Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Quan Nguyen Paradigm

8 rounds

Quan Nguyen

Debated for four years at Wichita East High School (2015-2019)

Debating at Washburn University

Assistant Coach at Shawnee Heights High School

Top Level:

- For email chains use: qmnguyen1229@gmail.com

- Make the subject line Tournament Name Round Number: Aff Team vs Neg Team (Washburn Rural Round 1: Wichita East NH vs Wichita East TY).

- I've been both a 2n and a 2a

- Tech >Truth

- Speed is fine

- Disclosure is good

- I like evidence comparison and direct clash

- I liked politics disads and "cheating" counterplans a lot in highschool

- In college I mostly go for impact turns

- I'm most likely a bad judge for K's and K affs but ill try my best


- I love politics and elections disads (exclusively went for them my senior year)

- Topic disads are also really cool

- Links are the most important part for me

- I like clever block spin and contextualization but good evidence matters too

- For the aff- I hate affs with a 3 card advantage and then framing contentions that dont interact with the disad but just say probability first!!!!- you still have to answer the levels of the disad and do significant work to mitigate it before your framing even matters

- Politics theory (intrinsicness, bottom of the docket, ect. ) are silly


- I liked stealing the aff

- There's no such thing as a cheating CP if you win theory

- Sufficiency framing and judge kick are things the 2nc/2nr needs to say otherwise I wont do it- likewise the 1ar/2ar should tell me why thats bad

- Perms need to be more than "perm do both" in the 2ac- explain what the perm looks like, the earlier the better


- Im pretty aff biased here and have little experience going for K's, plenty answering them (I went for them a total of 2 times senior year and lost both those rounds)

- The aff should probably get to weigh the 1ac

- Im a bad judge for K rounds and an even worse judge for K v K rounds but if thats your thing go for it, I'll try my best to keep up just know im a bad judge for it

T vs Planless Affs:

- I lean neg here (what a surprise!)

- Fairness is the best and most true impact

- I like TVA's

- I think planless affs that are specific to the topic are really cool but i dont like planless affs that seem like they could be read literally every year with no changes


- Hate blippy theory args

- Lean neg on most CP theory but you can change my mind

- Condo is good, I dont think I've heard a single compelling reason that its not

- Slow down

Dilon Nguyen Paradigm

8 rounds

email: dilonwin(at)gmail(dot)com , please add me on the chain or email if you have any questions.


My name is Dilon, i'm a current debater at New Mission High and been debating for 5 years and counting. I've debate in the high school circuit of Boston Debate League. I attended national circuit tournaments 3 out of my 5 years.

I am the 2A/1N if that matters to you. I'll vote on anything you read, I've done cp's and da's to performances. It really comes down to what you tell me to vote on and why. I'll do some of the work on the flow but don't think that I understand everything you tell me.

Keep these things in mind because I take these rules very seriously:

1. Be cordial, i want a good debate where both teams are able to learn and have fun.

2. I do not want to see a veteran team running high theory shit against a team that is new to debate, it can and may discourage new debaters to even debate. Being disrespectful is taking very seriously; it'll reflect on your speaks. I debate in a UDL so i know the huge gap in debate, so please be respectful to every team.

3. Weighing cards is better than giving me multiple pieces of evidence without any impact framing/calc. It'll be rewarded if you can tell me why pieces of evidence are important.

4. I'm a very expressive person so look at my face to see my reactions. Seriously, i do make pretty cool faces in round.

***If you say Jessie Pontes loves Framework debate, I might just give you a 30.***


there's a thin line between funny and asshole so remember that. Be you, do you, but just be respectful.

AFF: run whatever you like. I've ran K AFFS, Policy, and even nontopical policy (don't even ask me about it UwU). The aff has a burden of proving that the resolution is a good idea.

K AFF: I mostly run K affs so I'm perfectly ok with the performance affs. theres two things that apply to K affs: 1. PRF affs and 2. Fuck the resolution affs. I will vote on both. PRF affs, you must, I REPEAT YOU MUST, tell me how it connects to the resolution though i.e. metaphorical interp of the resolution.

K: I lean K. I'm familiar with race-based arguments so just do you. But, don't do some stupid sh*t about how like racism good. Also, high theory like nietszche, Lacan, Agamben, psychoanalysis etc. i'm not to familiar with but if you just explain a good story and tell me why the AFF fits into the kritik and how it triggers the impacts, as long as there's good contextualization then I'm all for it.

FW: idc, I'm willing to vote on it only if theres, 1. strong TVA 2. Prereq args in the 2NR.

DA: give me a good link sotry and impact calc. dont make me do work on the impact calc. I need to here a real clear reason on why they trigger imp. if it's not explained then i might not even evaluate it

CP: same thing as a case, just give me net benefit and a solvency story. tell me how it solves case and/or why it's just better than the aff

Speaks: speed, idc but i need to hear a tag and author. I'm super lenient w/ speaks because everyone has their own style.

Misc: people who have influenced me through my debate career is DB, Shanara, Calum, Rane, Rodger. take it however you want to.

Layne Nichols Paradigm

8 rounds


Firstly, it’s not my job to make your arguments for you or to be interventional. If someone makes a horrible argument, it’s your job to tell me why it’s horrible and why I should vote on it. Don’t just extend tags, instead extend the warrants as they tell me why the argument matters. This gives a better idea of the arguments you’re extending as I may not have caught the author or tag, but instead probably flowed the warrant.

Speed should be fine for whatever you want to do... if you go too fast I’ll hand signal you to slow down.

I’m with most all types of args - Theory, CPs, traditional DisAds, etc. Not a huge fan of K’s and I think they are not run properly and a waste of time. This doesn’t mean don’t run a K, it just means if you do, run it correctly or I probably won’t buy it.

I’m voting on quality of arguments, not how pretty a speaker you are. At the same time, if you constantly stumble over your words to the point where I can’t understand you, I probably just won’t even flow it.

Time yourselves, I don’t want to have to worry about that

TL;DR Don’t assume I’ll make points for you, speed doesn’t matter, run whatever you want as long as you run them correctly

Justin Real Paradigm

8 rounds

Debated 4 years Wichita East in Wichita, KS graduated 2019

Frosh debating at UT Austin

1A/2N until this year, now a 1N/2A but I still view debate as a 2N for the most part



Clipping is cheating- if it's egregious you'll lose with the lowest possible speaks.

I'm down for whatever you want to do (within reason- don’t say/do shitty stuff), but be ready to defend your actions and justify them and be able to explain your arguments.

Repeating a tagline isn't an extension.

Calculated and strategic risks WILL pay off with speaks (e.g. kicking the aff properly, impact turns, clever PIC/PIKs). Poorly calculated strategic choices will not.

*Local circuit people*

I'm 99.9% not going to vote on something being a stock issue. This is not to say I won't vote for inherency but that there needs to be a reason keeping affs inherent creates a good model of debate and provides for the best education or fairness in the round, not purely that it's a stock issue.

Also, please don't call me judge. It's just weird.


Impact turns are a lot of fun and make debates much more interesting. That being said, poorly executed impact turn debates are some of the worst debates to watch, so do it well. You should have offense on case either way, though, or it's just less fun to watch.

K aff's:

I'm perfectly fine with them and feel they have a lot of benefits to debate. Ran one for a bit. I have some more thoughts on the FW section below. Use the offense in your aff to your benefit- if you have built in preempts to FW or other K's you should use them.


What everyone is looking for: CI>Reasonability nearly always (more below). For those of you who care, about 1/4 of my 2NR's my senior year were T. I don't think this is me necessarily being a T hack but rather a lot of teams don't answer T as well as they could (so answer it well). A few thoughts on T:

1. Reasonability is about whether there is a reasonable debate to be had under the affirmative's model, not about whether the affirmative is reasonably topical. This means the standards debate is still in question when evaluating the round, just with discretion.

2. My threshold for explanation on T debates are pretty high, and you need to win not only the link chain to education or fairness (not an impact, by the way) but that education means something more than just "that destroys education"

3. Most T debates revolve around a central framing question (precision, predictability, etc.)- if you're not identifying what you want me to filter the debate through, I will filter it through what I think it should be through, which is probably not what you want. Framing is just as, if not MORE important on T than ever other flow.

FW/T vs K affs:

Switch side and good TVA's go a long way and resolve pretty much all offense aff teams have, and args against TVA are neg ground- affs have to give a reason why TVA doesn't access the aff's discussion.

I feel like reasonability is decent for topic based K affs and find the 'we are a discussion of the topic therefor we are topical' type argument pretty persuasive. This is not to say having a topic link means you win my ballot but rather that when the entire aff is topic based through the advocacy as well it makes it much easier.

P/ your interp plus our aff is bullshit- it's a debate of models and that model would be a world where every single aff could be about literally anything and say "your interp plus our aff" and win


I put this section above DA/CP because I feel it's what most people look for when looking through a paradigm quickly before a round. I like K's a lot- I went for neolib a lot my senior year- and am very well versed in Neolib and Psychoanalysis. I'm versed in some lit for others, as in I've hit them and read articles to understand them, but never to the level of running one. No matter what, you should be doing the same level of work to explain your theories whether you think I know it or not. PoMo is fine but don't just copy Michigan KM because you wanna be edgy.

Every K has top level theory that every team needs to answer and should have at least a cursory understanding of. If you don't, it will just generally be hard for you to win the debate.

*kicking the alt*

Don't do it, but if you must, you better either:

- Be very far ahead on FW and be good at winning your FW

- Generate uniqueness for an actual disad- something actually has to meaningfully change with the links/impacts. Linear disads will be an uphill battle


I really enjoy disad debates and think both teams have a lot of leeway to do what they want here. If you look at my 2NR's senior year I didn't go for them as often but this was less because of a dislike of disads and more strategic choices.

Aff: I personally love impact turns on disads in the 2AC and impact turning addons in the 1AR is amazing.

Neg: I think you need a scenario in the 1NC for your DA- it shouldn't stop at an internal link and affirmatives should punish teams who do this. For instance, the Base DA- Street 16 doesn't provide an impact, it just says trump lashes out somewhere, anywhere, who knows? The problem is, the 2AC isn't going to read impact defense to lashout and war with NoKo, Russia, China, Iran, etc. individually, and the lashout itself is the internal link. You need to have a scenario.

*DA v Case*:

You need to very clearly articulate why the DA outweighs and turns the impacts, and have very clear analysis on the case debate. Your framing of the round needs to be great and you also need to have specificity on every level of the DA. It's not impossible, just a lot easier with a CP.


If you want me to judge kick the CP, you need to tell me. And if you don't want me to judge kick the CP for them, you need to tell me why doing so is bad. Neg teams should be answering reasons why it's bad when they tell me they want me to do it the first time.

I love cheating CP's ngl. The more you can get away with, the better. That being said, the nature of this love also makes me realize they are in fact cheating CP's which means I am inclined to listen to a well constructed theory argument.

So, theory:

1. Keywords here are well constructed theory args. Merely reading a generic PICs bad shell won't work against most teams who are reading these CP's and answering this theory often.

2. Most theory args are reasons to reject the arg not the team

3. Condo is probably good

4. I generally think neg flex is good. As a 2N, I want to do what I want to do honestly. Not only that, but there are a lot of structural benefits to being aff built into debate, and I think negatives are always fighting an uphill battle against that, so yes neg flex is good BUT abuse of neg flex is apparent and will be noticed.

5. In my opinion, if a CP is deemed theoretically illegitimate it is separate from judge kick. Judge kick is done if the CP doesn't meet their burden of proof of a change to the squo when presumption flips (i.e. if it links to net benefit, doesn't solve shit). Judge kick is NOT when it is theoretically illegitimate. If the neg wins that I reject the CP on condo, it's saying that CP never should have been run in the first place, which still means evaluate da v case. If theory is part of the judge kick equation, there is not point for the distinction between reject the arg/reject the team.

Mason Remaley Paradigm

8 rounds

I'm tab in its purest sense,so feel free to run what ever you want. I'm just as comfortable with Deleuze as I am with T.

You have to extend analysis of arguments things for me to vote on them. I'm good with speed just be clear.

Don't be offensive.

I can answer specific questions in round or if you email me.

Email: masonaremaley@gmail.com

Lukas Rhoades Paradigm

8 rounds

Peninsula '22

Add me to the email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

Updated for 9/7/19 Notre Dame Novice Scrimmage


The most important things for these debates will be to learn and have fun!

I know you may not have enough time to read all of this before the round, just reading this preface should be enough.

I'll be evaluating arguments strictly on a technical basis without personal bias, so run whatever you choose (assuming it is in the packet).

Please refrain from offensive language/arguments, it definitely doesn't help you.

Please read the plan text in the 1AC! If it's at the end of the speech doc and time is running out it is in your best interest to get through it.

Just a heads up that I flow on laptop.


Some few things:

I think that advanced impact calculus can easily propel a team to a win in a close debate. The best way to do this is to utilize comparison instead of asserting that you are winning probability, timeframe, etc.

I don't really believe in a "0% risk of the disadvantage", but a very very very low risk is possible.

At the end of the debate the rebuttals should write the ballot, why should a low risk of your advantage outweigh a high risk of the disadvantage or an equal risk of both advantage and disadvantage mean you still should win? The more work you do in your speeches the better, as having the judge have to decide all of these things may not always play out in your favor.


I know it's in the packet and am assuming some teams will read it at least in the 1NC.

I default to competing interpretations (the neg's interpretation vs the affirmative's and which is a better model for debate) in these debates unless persuaded otherwise in the debate.

The decision would be based on:

First, what model of debate is better. (unless the affirmative wins reasonability)

Second, whether or not the affirmative is topical under the winning or in some cases the affirmative model.

If the affirmative is topical under the model chosen then my decision will be for the affirmative.

Third, are the impacts to the affirmative not being topical under this model of the debate enough to vote negative? (this should be pretty easy to win)

If the affirmative is not topical and there are sufficient reasons why this is bad then my decision will be for the negative.

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

milton Rosenbaum Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ty Rossow Paradigm

8 rounds

Add tyrossow@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I debated on the national circuit in CX (three years) and LD (one year) for Union HS (OK). I am now a first year out at Baylor University pursuing majors in economics and philosophy. I am also an LD instructor at VBI.

***General Thoughts***

--- Debate is a game. That does not mean the game should be exclusionary or lack educational value.

--- Tech determines truth. I’m not comfortable imposing my beliefs about the world onto the debate, unless the debate is offensive to a group of people.

----- I enjoy highly technical debates.

------- Speed is fine but be clear.

------- Evidence quality matters, but not if you don’t explain the warrants in said evidence. I’ll call for cards if there is a dispute about what a piece of evidence says, but I won’t vote on warrants in your evidence that are neglected in the debate.

------ If you clip cards or say something offensive about a group of people, I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.

----- Tl;dr for the rest of the paradigm: Like all judges, I have preferences, but I am generally comfortable with voting for anything. Win the arguments on the flow and you will almost certainly win my ballot.

***Policy Paradigm***

Policy AFFs: I like them.

*** Against the K: Don’t shy away from defending what you do. I’m more than comfortable with voting for a heg good + util 2AR if that’s the direction your aff takes you.

*** I’m also cool with soft-left AFFs.

K AFFs: I have experience reading them and will vote for it. Performance is also fine if you communicate the importance of it. Framework specific preferences are addressed below.

Disads: Yes. Read lots of cards.

CPs: Yes. My views on “judge kicking” aren’t particularly strong either way; give me a warrant and I will evaluate it.

K: Yes. I have a fairly extensive background in K debates. This is mostly on the identity side, but I am willing to listen to continental philosophy as long as it is explained well. In addition:

*** More specific link argumentation is always better. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for a generic link, but I’ll be much friendlier to your K if you can tie it to the 1AC.

*** On questions of framework, I lean towards the middle ground; the aff can weigh the 1AC, but the neg can garner links external to the plan.

*** The block and 2NR need to clearly articulate the alt for me to vote on it.

*** I will vote for a floating PIK, but if the aff calls it out, I will strongly lean aff on the theory debate.

T: Yes. Don’t be afraid to go for it if you’re winning the flow.

*** I generally default towards an offense-defense paradigm over reasonability.

Theory: It’s fine. I’m not a huge fan but I’ll vote on it if you’re clearly ahead.

*** I was a 2N so I lean neg on most theory debates, including condo, PICs, process CPs, consult CPs, and international fiat.

*** On condo: one counterplan is almost certainly acceptable, two counterplans is probably acceptable, three counterplans is debatably acceptable, and four counterplans is really pushing it.

*** I’ll vote on a perf con arg if it is impacted out and turns the K.


*** I lean neg. That does not mean you should be afraid to read a K aff in front of me; I will fully evaluate it like any other argument. Instead, it just means that you need to be going for the right arguments (under my paradigm) to win the debate.

*** On the neg, I am most persuaded by clash and procedural fairness arguments.

*** It helps me greatly if you have some way to suck up most of the aff offense. A TVA, truth testing, impact turns to the aff’s method, or some combination of these will greatly benefit your 2NR.

*** On the aff, I am most persuaded by arguments about how framework creates a poor educational model and/or necessitates exclusion.

*** You need to be defending your aff as a debatable argument. Impact turns to clash and fairness won’t get you far; I am highly inclined to believe that both of these are voting issues. Defensive arguments about how to preserve limits, ground, predictability, etc., coupled with your offense, is a much better strategy in front of me.

*** I would greatly appreciate seeing impact comparison from both sides. I feel that the neg is often ahead on questions of fairness, and the aff is often ahead on questions of education. Determining which impact outweighs is therefore paramount to many decisions.

***LD Paradigm***

General Thoughts:

---- Spreading is fine, but be clear.

---- I am fine with progressive and traditional LD, and I have experience in both.

---- LD rounds are often light on warrants and efficiency. If you are superior to your opponent in both of those regards, you will get my ballot over 90% of the time.

K AFFs/CP/DA/Framework/Ks: These are all good and addressed in my policy paradigm. Other thoughts I have specific to LD are:

*** I am more lenient towards CP theory in LD rounds due to the time structure. One condo CP or K is probably fine, but anything beyond that is probably abusive.

*** Comparative analysis that typically happens in the policy 2NC needs to be in the LD NC.

Plans: These are acceptable and I enjoy these debates.

*** I am willing to vote on Nebel T, and I am interested in hearing more of these debates.

Phil: Despite my primarily policy background, I enjoy these arguments quite a bit. I find philosophy fascinating, and these cases are the heart of LD, so please don’t hesitate to read them if this is your A strat.

*** If I feel as if your philosophy is under-warranted to confuse the opponent, I will be frustrated. On the contrary, phil cases that are well-explained and accessible will receive higher speaks. Giving examples that prove your philosophy will be a major help with this.

Theory: My receptiveness to your shell will largely hinge on a personal “gut check.” If legitimate abuse has clearly occurred in the round, I will grant you more leeway on the theory debate. However, I will be frustrated if it seems as if you are fishing for a theory violation to run from substantive debate. This also means that I lean strongly towards reasonability on theory, not T; I think most experienced debaters intuitively know whether their strat (or shell) is reasonable.

*** This does not mean I won’t vote for frivolous theory. If you win the arg, I will vote for it. However, I will be very frustrated, lower your speaks, and my threshold for you “winning the argument” will be high.

*** I am fine with metatheory in instances where there is legitimate abuse.

*** RVIs are debatably fine. I will vote on it if you win the flow.

*** It helps me when you give a title for your warrants. For example, instead of saying “a) x b) y ” say “a) Time skew (or whatever warrant) – x b) (separate warrant) etc.”

Wesley Roush Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated four years for Topeka High School in Topeka, KS

Don't be rude, have fun. I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

If you are reading a structural violence aff then you should be reading a content warning before the round begins. Doesn't mean you have to, just my personal preference.

I'd prefer a flash or to be on the email chain if applicable (wroush24@gmail.com)

I ran everything from middle of the road affs to K affs.

I value tech over truth, a conceded argument is a conceded argument.

If you are spreading give me some time in the beginning to let my ear warm up cause I haven't listened to fast flow debates in months. If I can't understand you then I won't be flowing. And for the love of god please sign post!!

I can adapt to most things you are running unless is a super specific K, then you might lose me on the flow because if I don't understand it I won't vote for it. I will probably look confused if I am confused.

But, if you are going to adapt to me then you should have a pretty easy time.

Affs - You should be topical or at least topic oriented. But I am not opposed to rejecting the topic. Just run whatever you have been running all year and you should be fine.

Disads - I enjoy unique and smart politics disads but I also think generics can garner good education in the round for lower levels of debate. If you don't have the basic structure of a DA then you have less of a chance winning on it.

CPs - Run them, I think they are a crucial part of the negs arsenal. PICs arent my favorite but that doesnt mean I won't vote for them. Other than that you should be fine if you read a CP in front of me unless its some generic delay CP.

T - T is important and teams should be reading T every round even to just test the aff. I don't have a default to either competing interps or reasonability - it is your job to convince me which one is better for the debate. RVI's are something I will NOT vote for. The aff should be good enough to answer T without trying the RVI. T is one of my favorite arguments and not enough teams utilize it.

Ks - Sure read them, just because you can read blocks at me doesnt mean I'll vote for it. If you are just yelling buzzwords and not explaining the argument then there is a small chance I'll vote for it.

Any questions just ask me when in the room and I'll be happy to answer it.

Maddie Rowley Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Gabriel Sandoval Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sarwa Shah Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Richard Shen Paradigm

8 rounds

General Tips

- I will vote on almost anything if you debate it well enough. Read what you feel comfortable with.

- A dropped argument is a true argument, but you still need to explain why that argument is important.

- Clarity comes first. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't write it down. If my pen stops moving during your speech it's a bad sign.

- Everything results in extinction anyways, so make sure you're doing good impact comparison probability-wise.

- Please be polite and professional. I will dock speaks for rudeness and disorganization.

- Good evidence is good, but spin is more fun :) Just don't flat-out lie because I will catch you.

- Humor gets you points for style but won't affect my decision.


Underrated imo. Debate the case like you would any other flow. That means making good arguments and responding to your opponents. A well-debate case can swing the round either way. The aff will usually have better solvency evidence but the neg can beat it with smart analytics. Take out the weakest internal links!

I don't care much for philosophical framing debates. Just tell me why structural violence should outweigh a small chance of a disad or why extinction comes first.


Good as a tool for taking down tricky, borderline-topical affs. Bad as an A-strat. That said, reasonability will not always save you.

K Affs- Debate πŸ‘ is πŸ‘ a πŸ‘ game. I think deliberately avoiding the topic is unfair. That's not a free win for the negative, though. Both sides need to fully explain the value of their position.


My personal favorite part of debate.

Every disad is different so I can't say much other than UQ, L, I. You're gonna want to win all three. In the end, the 2nr will have to tell a story, so specificity and coherence tend to beat sweeping aff args.


My second favorite part of debate. A clever counterplan that solves the case will win my ballot. The affirmative will need to win that the risk of a solvency deficit outweighs the risk of the net benefit to beat any counterplan.

Solvency advocate theory's a loser, but not having evidence makes solvency deficits more enticing.

50 state fiat theory's not great. I will allow it but whether the negative gets uniformity is up for debate.

I will judge kick if you tell me to.

Good: smart and creative PICs

Bad: Multi-actor, future fiat, consult

PS- speak boost to whomever first compliments my Supreme sticker; gotta do your pre-round prep, kids.


I understand most kritics, but the negative should still slow down in the overview to explain the thesis. Random buzz words and K-tricks will not cut it.

Specific links will beat the perm. Co-option disads won't.

I will usually lean aff on framework. "Vote for whichever team best heuristically examines capitalistic epistemology" is not fair.

David Si Paradigm

8 rounds

Dougherty Valley '19

Email: davidsidebate@gmail.com


-Debate how you normally would debate in front of me: fast, slow, critical, etc.

-I am most likely qualified to judge your round

-My judging paradigm is similar to Scott Wheeler's


-I debated four years of Policy and LD

-I received 1 bid to the LD TOC

-I qualified to the NSDA National Tournament in Policy 2x, reaching top 30

-I qualified to the CA State Tournament in Policy 3x, reaching quarterfinals

-I primarily read policy-style arguments, but have gone for K's as well. If you are reading a K I've most likely hit it before, so expect a cursory understanding.


-Almost all of my 2NR's have had this. Read them as you usually would.

-Politics DA's are probably educational. I lean neg on questions of whether fiat includes PTX.


-Default judge kick.

-Read sufficiency framing.

-Condo is good unless there is a convincing reason why the specific advocacies force aff out of making certain arguments.

-Lean aff on cheaty counterplans theory.


-Default reasonability. However, I'm neutral about competing interps vs reasonability.

-Weigh standards (legal precision vs limits) and also voters (fairness vs education)

-Assume I have no topic knowledge so provide case lists and warrant what constitutes "core of the topic."


-ELI5, don't take buzzwords for granted

-Specific link work + alt solvency explanation >>> generic framing + ROTB

-I don't take a particular stance on whether the aff gets to weigh case, but when the arguments boil down to "moots the 1AC" versus "epistemology first + fiat double bind" I find myself (reluctantly) leaning neg.

-If your strategy revolves around confusing your opponent you will confuse me as well.

K Affs + Framework

-I prefer if these are in the direction of the resolution but this isn't a hard rule.

-Your counterinterp to framework should be a robust, defensible model for debate.

-You get perms as long as you convincingly explain what they look like.

-Here are some of my preferences

-Education >>> Procedural Fairness, but I understand the strategic incentives in front of certain affs.

-Policymaking bad >>> Limits are a prison.


-Drop the argument. Drop the team is reserved for condo only.

Madison Simms Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tanya Singh Paradigm

8 rounds

For Congressional Debate, I believe speech structure is very important with speaking, and I also believe that being a clear, concise speaker is integral for competitive success.

In session, I value clash and non-repetition. Especially refuting the points of specific representatives and showing how your point and theirs fundamentally differ. If I hear a speech that repeats everything that has already been said in the debate and adds nothing new, along with avoiding direct clash, I will vote down, regardless of how brilliant of a speaker you might be.

I believe that with this structure you must give a thesis in which you "preview" your points before actually going on to give your speech, otherwise, it becomes unclear as to what you are going to say and becomes harder to judge/examine clash.

With argumentation, you must present a claim and a CLEAR warrant to support the aforementioned claim. Don't assume that everyone in the room knows what your statistics mean, explain to them if necessary, but make it short and sweet.

There also needs to be a real-world impact for your argument, nothing you say actually matters if you don't explain how this will change global geopolitics or demographics for better/worse. Then, you are just saying things to say them.

In the cross-examination/questioning period, don't let the questioner ramble on with a half-coherent question for fifteen seconds or longwindedly give an answer that lasts for twenty. This is where I especially value being clear and concise.

I will be especially tough on the PO, parliamentary procedure can be arduous and difficult so I will be lenient on that, but being fair and kind to the representatives in the chamber is important, as you have been given the duty by your peers. Respect goes BOTH ways.

I value sportsmanship very highly. Do not be rude to the other representatives in your chamber or subordinate them to yourself. Do not be bigoted or disrespectful. We are here to have an intellectual debate and it would be inappropriate for it to devolve into disorganized chaos where nobody is treating each other correctly.


With Policy Debate, I am slightly more lenient on speech style and I find myself fixating on the validity of arguments and the analysis of arguments being made. This does not mean I will vote up speakers who are sloppy and unstructured, because I will not. Speed is not an issue for me, you will not be speaking too fast for me at any time, as long as you signpost and slow down on your tags, so I can flow. As long as you can speak quickly and with clarity, I will be fine with speed.

I will tell you that I have only done one year of policy debate (with great competitive success in the KDC and JV divisions).

In the event that someone doesn't speak clearly, I will clear them. I will clear a competitor exactly twice before putting down my flow and tuning out for the rest of the speech. I will also vote down for a lack of clarity in speeches.

For Disadvantages and Kritiks, they should have an aff-specific link (but I will be lenient on this rule in the case that an aff is small/niche-y).

DAs: I really really dislike the usage of generic links because they tend to be weak and are not really applicable to all affirmative cases under the resolution. I prefer politics disads to anything else, I think they're the strongest type of disadvantage, but that doesn't mean I'm going to flip out if you run some other form of disadvantage. The disadvantage is easily my favorite argument that can be made on the neg. I debated a lot in the KDC division (classical style debate) in which disadvantages are predominantly used as neg offense. Make sure the disadvantage is unique and has a strong link chain leading to the impact. I strongly dislike disadvantages with a nonsensical link chain or have an impact of nuke war/global pandemic from 2010, because the timeframe for that has OBVIOUSLY elapsed. I prefer more real-world impacts of structural violence, racism, discrimination-based violence.

Ks: I'm not gonna pretend I'm some sort of K Hack or something, I've only read Neolib and Fem K in round, but I have read some other K lit with some level of understanding. I also dislike generic link arguments with kritiks, despite liking them as an argument being made on the neg- I believe there's a lot of merits to the Kritik. Make sure that your alt guarantees solvency and tell me why we should prefer the world of the alt to the world of the aff. Tell me WHY the world of the aff is bad and how the aff leads to your impact/impacts. You should able to refute arguments made on the Kritik. I prefer epistemology to ontology in Kritikal debates. For the Kritik I'm open to more impacts than I would be with a disadvantage, especially with the nature of a kritik, but I prefer impacts of societal/ecological collapse, worsening of status quo, etc.

Topicality: I like topicality, but not as much as disadvantages and kritiks. If it gets to the point that the 2NC is 8 minutes of Topicality, you better do a good job analyzing the T debate. I will vote for T if it is the main voter/argument present in round, otherwise I will vote for other arguments being made. If the aff provides a counterinterpretation, tell me why I should prefer your interpretation to theirs. I am not too huge on debating credibility (in general) of sources as opposed to the actual warrants of the definition. Otherwise with crebility on T, my hierarchy for credible sources is pretty simple:

1. Supreme Court Rulings

2. Governmental Organizations

3. Experts on the Topic

4. Mainstream Media

5. Dictionaries

for voters on topicality, I prefer education based voters. I don't really want to hear anything else as a voter because at the end of the day, education gained/lost should matter more than anything else in the round.

Counterplans: I'm not a huge fan of them, because solvency usually doesn't match with the counterplan text in its entirety, but I am not completely closed off to the idea of them. They are just my least favorite argument used for neg offense.

PICS and PiKs: Prove PICS are abusive if they are run. You could do a PiK in one sentence (please slow down for it) and I would still count it as an argument that must be responded to.

K Affs: I'm mostly unfamiliar with K Affs, I've read some K Affs on Open Evidence, but I don't entirely grasp or prefer the structure of K Affs.

Theory: I like debating on debate theory, especially when used to prove abuse/no abuse in the round. But I dislike hearing the same, stale blocks that anyone can get from Open Evidence.

Framing: I love hearing debates on framing and seeing affs that provide framing because they give me a lens to look through the round with instead of forcing me to rely on my own, biased lens. Framing is quite important to me because in most rounds it can determine a win/loss by telling me what to prioritize in the round. When both aff and neg provide frameworks, I must be given a reason to prefer one framework over the other.


* I hate arguments saying racism good, sexism good, poverty good, etc. I will vote you down for running them.

* I get triggered by descriptive narratives of rape, domestic violence/sexual violence, suicide, and mental illness. These can be briefly mentioned in round, but if you fail to provide a content warning and read such narratives, I will leave the round for that speech.

*Be fair to your opponent and show good sportsmanship. Don't be rude/condescending to them and respect them, their pronouns and triggers. Don't run arguments that invalidate an opponent's identity intentionally.

*Don't be abusive and run shallow arguments as a time skew that kill education in the round. I think it's fundamental that we be equitable to each other and make sure that everyone leaves the round with as much education as they can possibly gain from the round.

*Flash quickly when using flashdrives, I would prefer a copy as well for flowing purposes and so I can read the cards and understand the warrant behind them better through reading them.

Thanalini Sivanesan Paradigm

8 rounds

Yes, I would like to be apart of the email chain. (thanalini14@gmail.com)

Yes, you can spread.

Yes, it can be open cx.

Quick Things to Know ...

1. DO NOT say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic. Even if the other team doesn't make it a voting issue (which they should ... hint hint) I will drop speaks.

2. Impact out all of your arguments!

On to the Specifics ...

CPs are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity. A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff plan.

DAs are good too, but generic links that apply (to immigration policies) overall are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.

- I'm not as persuaded by nuclear war impacts. You can try, just have a good internal link story.

Ks are my favorite! That DOES NOT include white POMO ... those are my least favorite. You can read them if you like but be ready to explain the white gibberish simply, because confusion does not get my ballot, and disregard my eye rolling. Do not take this to mean that I will vote up a queer anarchy k, anti-blackness k etc. just because its read. Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions, and you got my ballot smile

FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on it, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's.

I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory, if the violation is unreasonable.

- I DO NOT think Fairness is an impact.

- I will likely buy condo bad if its more than 6 off.


Cole Skinner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Halton Stancil Paradigm

8 rounds

Policymaker, with an emphasis on stock issues. I don't really like theory, but if you have to run it make sure I can follow it very closely.

I require that those participating in cross-ex stand if they are responding/asking questions.

Please don't spread! On a scale of 1-10 (10 being super spread) I'm comfortable at a 5 or weak 6. I like quality of the speech over quantity of the arguments.

I don't like Kritikal Affirmatives. I think they detract from the object of the particular debate.

I would like it if voters/frameworks could be made clear as early as possible. (First rebuttals being the last chance for that)

I like competing values, they really make for a more interesting debate and add to the overall clash.

I would prefer if teams could time themselves for speeches and prep time.

Alex Sullivan Paradigm

8 rounds

About Me:

Pronouns: she/her

Policy consultant for Melissa High School (TX). Student at the University of North Texas.

(2015-2019) Policy for Melissa High School on the UIL, TFA, NSDA level(s). Read soft left affs and 2NR's were an even split between policy strats (cp/da) and method strats (gender k) and the occasional theory

Former coaches: Brenden Dimmig and Kyle Brenner

Paradigm Thesis: TAB

Yah I want to be on the email chain: alexisindebate@gmail.com

Tournaments Judged 2019-2020:

Plano TFA

Grapevine TFA

Wylie TFA



My paradigm should not restrict the debaters from choosing one thing over the other. Use this as a guide, not as the rules. Everything is up for debate! Do what you're comfortable with.

Thesis: I will listen to whatever you read in front of me (unless otherwise derogatory) and will try my best to evaluate each position fairly -- I do consider myself tab. I feel a lot of times judges say this but just want to look cool/not get striked or whatever and end up screwing teams over. I want to stray as far away from that and will live up to my paradigm! Do whatever you're comfortable with and just be cognitive of me following along with your arguments. Have fun!

- Tell me how/where/why to vote

- Truth over tech WITH warrants to uphold your truth claim(s)

- The winning framework, impacts or theoretical, has priority. Default policymaker if no framework is given

- Impact scenarios are pretty, especially in the 2nr, but internal links are more important

- Split the neg block correctly and please collapse the debate down to 1, maybe 2, positions

- ^^^that includes disad standards on topicality in the 2nr

- I'd rather you not read new in the 2nc

- Give trigger warnings/ disclosure is educational and will help you

Stylistic Things:

Speed: I'm fine with it! Just sign-post and please slow down on tags/analytics and especially overviews/underviews. Please be aware that I will most likely be following along/reading and comparing evidence

Speaker Points: I will start with a 28 and then work my way up or down :) For specific tournaments, I will adjust my speaker point range for sure

Card clipping: Noopppppeeee. Not cool. Don't cheat

Etiquette: I will absolutely not tolerate any racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, xenophobic, derogatory, etc. commentary in the round. Just be kind pls. Let her talk

Appearance: I could care less about how you dress or look. It's 2019, srsly who cares about those misogynistic and gendered norms. Also, I don't care if you sit down during cross-ex. Just make sure I can hear/see you. Whatever makes you comfortable

Last couple of things: I flow on paper and sometimes on my computer. Every contention/advantage will be its own sheet and every off will be its own sheet. I will flow everything you say unless I have no idea what you're saying. I don't necessarily count flashing as prep unless it becomes excessive, duhhh


Policy Debate:


- The standards are disadvantages. Please provide a case list as to what you loose/why that's important

- I love contextualization and/or grammar arguments. Term of art pls. Saying, "look at the plan through a vacuum" doesn't really do anything for me - do that full analysis

- Competing interps or reasonability? Tell me which one to prefer. If there is no telling here, I will most likely default to competing interps

- Reasonability is the test of the AFF's counter-interpretation, not the AFF


- I treat framework in similar regards to topicality. Explain how/why this sets a precedent

- A topical version of the aff is probably your best way to win here


- I think I could vote on any type of theory given its correctly debated/ ask me otherwise


- I don't need a case-specific link on the disad in order to vote on it, that is if the aff doesn't do a good job analyzing this. A good disad has a line in the link evidence that exclusively mentions the aff- obviously

- An awesome 2ac has smart analytical arguments more than cards answering each level of the disad

- Tell me why the disad outweighs/turns case

- If you are losing uniqueness, it's going to be really hard for you to win the disad debate unless it's a linear disad. You have to win the link in order to win the disad

- Straight turning needs both a non-unique and link turn. If you do this, make sure the impact framework on the disad doesn't contradict the aff framework you're going to go for in the 2ar


- External and internal net benefits are super-duper important. Don't contradict your case arguments with the counterplan

- Both aff and neg explain to me how the counterplan can/cannot solve 100% of the aff- with impacts to those arguments

- Perm debate is super important, obviously. Make disads to the perm(s) with impacts and make net benefits for the perm(s) too

Kritiks & Performance:

- Line by line is great. The overview can get messy when you try to cross apply/answer arguments here. Just be strategic here

- Make sure, of course, you are solving the linear disad and winning the root cause debate

- As you've heard a thousand times I'm sure, don't assume that I know your author. Give me that accessible explanation y'know?

- If you want to make framework the contesting issue here then so be it

- I think the method debate starts at the level of the alternative and goes up from there. Reject alts are fine but more substantive alts will probably get you farther

Case debate:

- If you're going for the disad, you should probably have some defense here

- Please utilize the comparative analysis on their evidence/ taking down their internal links here would be strategic

- Impact turning the aff- teams are like "Omg, who is she? We don't know her". Please utilize this more and make sure to impact it out and don't contradict yourself of course

- Reading your generic circumvention/block arguments here get really boring- having case-specific arguments are dope and will help your speaks for sure


LD Debate

I did policy in HS so just keep that in mind. I feel more comfortable judging more-so progressive rounds than traditional ones. I view this as an important weighing of offense/defense in conjunction with framework of course. I think the information from the policy section will serve the same purpose for you here


- Tell me to vote and/or view the round in a specific framework, that's fine. Explain to me why your lens is better/more important/ solves better or whatever you defend

- Internal link turning your opponents framework is super cool. Here make sure you are explaining why your criterion/standard better resolves your opponets value in some better way


- I don't have any predispositions about what values are better/tangental or of that sorts to the resolution

- Just do a good job building link chains to whatever framing you want to go for


- Yah they're fine


- I view and treat these as advantages to the case like in policy debate. Just make sure it links back into your framework clearly

Plans & Performance

- All dope. Give me solvency on plans of course


- These most likely need to be tangent with the aff- like their plan or their method

- Refer to the policy section

Case debate/Contentions:

- I'll view these as advantages in policy debate but of course tangent to LD

- Attacking your opponent's evidence is sweet - internal link chains for their value too

Ask for further questions! peace out

Malhar Tamhane Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Andrew Tran Paradigm

8 rounds

Policy Paradigm:

Framework: I'm pretty tabula rasa, so please tell me how to vote or I'm just going to vote for the team that wins on stock issues. I love good framing debates with impact calculus in the rebuttals.

Speed: Speed is okay with me only if it's okay with the other team. Ask each other before the round starts if you want to spread. If you are unintelligible I'll raise my hand for you to slow down.

Topicality: I vote on topicality if you can prove a real violation and that it actually inhibits NEG ground. I won't vote on T's that are just obviously time fillers though, if you want to win on a T you should be spending at least two minutes on it in the 2NR with good arguments.

Conditionality: You can kick arguments in the block but it's a time skew if you kick in the 2NR, the rebuttals should be about the main voting issues, not the 1AR answering everything so the 2N can just kick.

Kritiks: I'm okay with kritiks, if you want to run them just run them well.

Counterplans: Counterplans HAVE to be non-topical, it's basic policy theory. AFF: Perms are NOT advocacies, they are tests of mutual exclusivity. Perms don't "solve" things because all they are is testing if a CP is mutually exclusive or not. That being said, if you can prove the CP isn't mutually exclusive then I don't vote on the CP.

Disadvantages: I'm a firm believer that the best NEG cases is the classic DA/CP/Case. I love if you have a good story with realistic internal links that shows a real disadvantage to the plan.

Please just be nice to your opponents and have a good time! Debate is supposed to be a fun activity where you can also learn, if you're being exclusive in the debate space I will hold that against you.

LD Paradigm:

LD is a value debate. You should have a value and defend that value as the most important thing in the entire debate. I don't think LD should be a solo watered-down version of policy, so just debate values well.

PF Paradigm:

Public Forum is probably the closest thing to actual people debating issues outside of Speech and Debate. I like it that way, just let your public forum rounds be real, unadulterated debating. Please though, just try to be nice during Crossfire.

Aryan Waghmode Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Natalie Wang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Akshay Warrier Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Richard Waterhouse Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jasmine Watson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Marna Weston Paradigm

Marna Weston (coached by Dale McCall at Twin Lakes High, WPB, FL)
State Champion, Lincoln Douglas Debate & NFL District Champion, Policy Debate (Florida)


Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. I am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal clear rebuttals. I've been focused on my policy teams this year, so I'm not familiar with the LD topic. I think there is still such a thing as an LD topic, although I keep hearing the same positions regardless of the topic a lot, and I guess that's ok. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

TOC Haiku:

Sacred space except

The room where we exchange thoughts

is not for condo

Full Paradigm:
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm (Scroll down to see my policy paradigm):

I guess the best statement I can make about typing a philosophy for a mutual judge preference list in Lincoln Douglas Debate is “I do not understand why this is needed.” My high school coach, Mrs. Dale McCall of Twin Lakes High in West Palm Beach, Florida and others contributed their ideas toward a new style of debate in the early 80’s where “superior speaking to lay audiences on a proposition of value” was envisioned. Any reasonable person without specialized knowledge of any kind would be a fitting judge or audience member in such a forum. That event was called Lincoln Douglas Debate. As a participant when LD was still an experimental event and the topics were chosen through individual tournament invitation, I debated in the final round of the Inaugural Lincoln Douglas Debate at the Barkley Forum in March 1983. In October 1981 a fellow teammate and I closed out the New York City Invitational at the Bronx High School of Science. My paradigm is and always has been, “be a high school Lincoln Douglas Debater”. Offer reasonable definitions (required), a value (required), and criteria as appropriate (probably optional, definitely debatable). Debate as if before a community group, and do not perform in such a way that would alienate reasonably intelligent people who have come to be both informed and entertained.

A good standard would be the “my principal” paradigm. If the principal of my school watched you debate and from your performance came to me on the Monday after your performance and said, “Mr. Weston, I am concerned that debate is confusing, exclusionary, and not an activity that is building critical thinking or communication skills for our students based on what I saw last weekend”, then you can be sure that you will have lost my ballot. Such a performance could endanger the existence of my program. My ballot acts as a defense from such examples gaining popularity. I believe enough loses might cause such practices to cease.

The “role of the ballot” and RFD when I am the critic will ideally be to honor the historic intent of the Lincoln Douglas event and those who worked so hard to bridge the debate world for general audiences, and not to exclude such persons. A rude debater can expect to lose “on face” absent any consideration of arguments withstanding in the round. The activity is about life and how one carries oneself.

Additionally, I shall not reward debaters with high speakers for “rolling over” opponents. One to six big ideas is probably the most I should hear in constructive speeches and these then boiled down to one to four critical voters at the end of the debate. “Drops” in LD are evaluated qualitatively, not quantitatively. It is certainly possible that “one big idea” could make many more ideas irrelevant to a decision, if argued effectively. A superior debater should be able to win the round with class while respecting the dignity of the opposition, in every instance. In short, any person coming into the round should be able to evaluate the round, and every person in the round must be treated in a dignified manner, either as a participant, observer, or critic.

Thank you for your interest in my thoughts.

Policy Paradigm

Updated 8/14/16

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a larger factor in my adjudication process than in most decisions in recent years. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding.

My paradigm is one of few dispositions; the rest is up to the debaters. They are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this.

2. Topical Counterplans are not OK. If at the end of the round I haave been effectiely persuaded there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why its important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear and irrefuably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. No, really.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your position (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), should be left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it.Ask meto vote for your side. Dont complete on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negaative wins the debate. Be paricularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isnt lost and warrants a decision.These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully.

8. I will appreciate teams who competently deploy arguments from the earlier days of CEDA, such as Justification, Hasty G, etc. I also appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. "Sort of kidding" but I know this has happened to teams and that in my career in the activity, more than one judge thought they voted for a team, when they hadn't. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which team you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot.:)

Public Forum Paradigm

Updated 8/14/16

To be truthful, it all goes by a little quickly for me in a PF round. I never competed in PF. The speeches are really short. I do appreciate the skills developed through the practice of concisely presenting so many arguments in a limited space of time. On a personal note, I thought the whole idea of yet another "policy is too fast and there is too much research" debate event, was that PF would remain slow for lay audiences. I have observed this is not the case, but good debates are still where you find them in PF--- as in Congress, Policy, LD, and Worlds. As such, please watch me closely and clearly indicate why as a judge I should prefer your way of evaluating the round over your opponents. I'm always pretty much up to speed on current events through working on Policy & Extemp each week of the season, so I'll probably be up to date on your issue. The key will be to express reasons to prefer your interpretation of what is important-------over what your opponent is saying. Whoever does that most effectively will likely win my ballot.


Marna Weston

Tia Whitman Paradigm

I have competed in policy debate, extemp, and congress the past four years, so those are the events I know best. I have competed at the state and national level many times, so I understand the structure and argumentation of these events fairly well.


Policy was my main event and I enjoyed it very much. When in round, I want to definitely see clash. I'm basically tab, but if you can't convince me of an argument, I'm not going to vote on it. Also, I usually do not like K's. However, if you can run one correctly and coherently, I'm open to hear it. Try to avoid petty arguments that you're going to kick out later in the round, it's usually just a time suck. If you kick out of an argument, convince me it was necessary. As for spreading, I am okay with it, but if I can't understand a word you're saying, I will say "Clear" only twice and will stop flowing after that. I do not count flashing as prep.


For extemp, I would like to see you understand the information you're telling me and tell me why what you are saying is important or factual. I don't want you to perform like it's a prepared speech. In that regard, I mean I would rather see a comfortable, conversational speech rather than you just spitting facts at me.


I'm gonna be honest, I've never competed in poetry or judged it before. Regardless, I have watched a few rounds so I want to see projection and clean, cut blocking. I do believe your piece must be age-appropriate, so no extensive cussing, etc. I also expect to be drawn in and moved by your piece.

Kris Wright Paradigm

Not Submitted

Noah Yust Paradigm

Debated at Wichita East 2015-2019

Email chain: yes Noahyust@gmail.com

Shake hand: No

Experience on this topic: No

I will do my very best to adapt to your argumentative style; but that can be difficult, so the following is a list of my preferences


K/Planless: This is fine. Have a clear advocacy. Your answers to tusfg should be contextualized to your advocacy not just generic state engagement bad. I've read some PoMo BS on aff/neg and setcol on the neg... but you should presume I don't understand your K.

Soft left: I have never heard a "framing contention" compelling enough to make DAs go away. To do that you need to point out specific epistemological flaws in the relevant DA; if you can do that, you probably don't need the "framing contention". I've yet to see a card tagged "x comes first" that seriously defends that x is worse than extinction. For me, Just sit on the fact that ur impact is the most probable.


Impact turns: yes, more


I think debate is a game, but it can be more than a game. I think speeches are perforamtive (including spreading 15 heg cards). A good TVA makes a neg ballot very easy. Fairness is important to access education, but probably hard to win as an external impact. I dislike debaters making broad claims about their opponent's model of debate when they clearly have no idea what it's like to always read a plan/never read a plan (That's my way of saying be respectful).


I need you to paint very good pictures of your and your opponent's interpretations of the topic. Caselists are good but insufficient to accomplish this alone. Good TVAs are always good. Since I'm new to this topic, I'm probably not the t judge you want. I'm not sympathetic to warrantless buzzword spam.


Condo is probably good

Reject the argument>reject the team. Except in the case of condo


Presume I don't know your lit. Link work is key, I think it determines the strength of your answers to perms and fw args. I dislike FrankenKs. Please, for the love of god, don't make me get out a new sheet for the overview.


Yes, please do.

I think it is possible for a bad DA to be reduced to 0% probability via analytics and recutting ev. I.e. breaking a new Albanian ptx DA does not guarantee you a viable 2NR.


I can be easily persuaded that delay, consult, offsets, and CPs that just rename the aff (see parole from the immigration topic) are theoretically illegitimate.

Affs should impact out each solvency deficit.

I default to judge kick unless instructed otherwise.


28.5 is the middle

I will add/subtract up to .2 based on your wiki etiquette. Disclosure is good.

Things that help: Good jokes, good cadence, clarity, smart strategic decisions, evidence-based CX, having fun

Things that hurt: reading 7 one-line CPs, spreading through theory blocks, being unkind


I think like a 2A

don't round/steal prep time

Be nice. I reserve the right to vote you down for [bad things]

Anaya parikh Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

esra qaki Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

malavika rajaram Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

ethan seabourn Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

micheal stroud Paradigm

8 rounds

i will not be persuaded to vote for or reward teams who use or promote racist, xenophobic, sexist, transphobic, or violent language. i will not be persuaded to vote for or reward teams who clip cards, cross read, or, variously, cheat. 

"yes, i want to be on the email chain. my email address is micheal.stroud@gmail.com"



debates take a long time, already. 92 minutes, optimistically. please, please dont make them last any longer than they absolutely must. if you, for any reason, must take a break or stop the clock, that's totally okay. but for the sake of us all getting off campus at a reasonable hour, and for our hosts who put together a schedule for a reason, lets all try to keep our debates to, like, 105 minutes.


"Debates are [almost certainly] best decided by the debaters themselves."

i dont believe i have ideological positions on what debaters should say _before the debate_. by the conclusion of the debate, i hope to have developed strong opinions about the content, and form, of the debate i watched. i invite you to do what great debaters ought to: persuade. 

i will be happiest voting for a team that doesn't underestimate the value of cross examination time.  

i will be happiest voting affirmative for the presentation and continuous defense of: 1) a strong case that there exists one or more problems in a set, and 2) propose a solution to that problem set (pessimism/no solution _is_ a defnsible solution to problem sets). 

i will be happiest voting negative for the presentation and defense of a combination of any of: 3) the affirmatives identified problem set is not that, 4) the affirmatives identified solution is not that, 5) the affirmative will make some other problem set worse, 5b) that matters a great deal, 6) an alternative solution to the affirmatives problem set, 7) the affirmatives formal framing of their problem set is itself a problem. 

"i am not likely to be persuaded to vote affirmative for a wrong forum argument." however i could be persuaded that a teams approach to debate itself is preferable to their opponents, and that should be the filter through which i evaluate the debate.

i can be persuaded that negatives should have significant flexibility to respond creatively and passionately to the affirmative, and that a strategic pivot as the result of a discovered flaw in that response is alone insufficient to default affirmative.

"i don't want magic word invocation to stand in for final rebuttal work weighing and comparing potential outcomes. 'extinction' and 'nvtl' are not arguments.