NDA High School Debate Tournament 3

2020 — Newark, NJ/US

Vaughan Akridge Paradigm

8 rounds

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

I am a graduate of East Side High School (class of 2012) and I have been debating for four years while I was at East Side High School. I did policy debate for three years and then I did Lincoln-Douglass debate in my last year of high school because I had a lot of partner issues. I am currently attending Essex County College majoring in Liberal Arts and I am projected to graduate in December with my associate's degree and transfer to Rutgers Newark in the Spring 2020

For Novice Debaters

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

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

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

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

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

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

-I ABHOR THEORY ARGUMENTS THAT ARE USED in bad faith! To clarify, when a theory argument is used to not check potential or in-round abuse, and instead is used to garner offense without context specific to the debate, it indicates to me as a judge that you're trying to circumvent the discussion instead of actually engaging the arguments being presented in the round. As a debater, you need to pay attention how it is being deployed in the round and discern if the argument is being used in good faith or not. If not, then respond to it with direct clash and warrants to back it up.

-Topicality is another argument that I don't like but I don't totally dislike either. Like theory, the situation has to present itself in a way that will be smart for you to run the argument. So as long as you don't drop it and try to bring it back in the later speeches for a cheap win, I will evaluate it. I do evaluate the K of topicality as well so as long as you can explain how the K of Topicality addresses topicality as a concept and why its bad for the round. However, you still need to answer the shell thoroughly with a counter-interpretation, definition, etc. etc. Arguments that you run analytically will have to have some sort of warrant or empirical evidence in order for me to truly evaluate it.

-I'm totally fine with the staple arguments (i.e. CP's and DA's). And for CP's specifically, if you're running a PIC, I'd really appreciate an overview of the pic for the sake of clarity and why the PIC is uniquely beneficial for the neg, and why a permutation would make them extra topical.

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

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

-If the aff doesn't address the K thoroughly with a permutation argument or impact turns the K, make it your priority to extend it throughout the debate. Don't let them get away with defensive/non-answer-esque arguments that don't address the core issues the K intends to solve for. However, if they do go for a permutation argument and they don't explain how and why the permutation is uniquely better than the alternative, explain why their permutation argument can't and shouldn't work, and why it is a reason I should prefer the alternative.

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

-Essentially, if it doesn't meet the brightline, they'll functionally concede to it without an explanation as to how nd why they'll meet that brightline better than you. However, if the brightline is upheld and extended throughout the round as the prerequisite/starting point to whatever discussion that needs to be had then I will evaluate it as the argument as is. By the way, I also prefer framework arguments that promote an idea that is able to be utilized in the most holistic way possible. I'm also fine with Policy Option framework arguments as well, as long as they're explained in a way that promotes practicality in terms of putting forward a systemic solution along with using it as a starting point to a discussion.

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

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

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

Akilah Akridge Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Victoria Borges Paradigm

8 rounds

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

In General

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

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

I would vote on almost anything, just debate it.

Aff

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

Neg

T:

LOVE topicality.

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

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

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

Thoery: eh. It's cool.

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

CP's:

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

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

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

I am familiar with:

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

DA: eh.

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

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

Michael Casas Paradigm

Hey my name is Michael, email: mcasas1289@yahoo.com

Experience; 3 years of High School POLICY debate ( University High School )

PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT I AM A POLICY JUDGE WHO JUST BEGAN JUDGING LD

Rutgers University - Newark

EXPLAIN what I should vote for you and make it clear. Once you make your point MOVE ON, please don't repeat yourself.

Organize your arguments. Line-Line is nice too.

Spreading is acceptable but be clear. I will call out clear when you are unclear TWICE. After that, I will just stop writing.

i dont like severance affs

I'm pretty liberal so you can any type of argument as long as you can convince me

Critical Affs are cool, explain why we should start with your point and their impacts. (framing preferred with K Aff's)

All Neg Strats are acceptable but please present them clearly so i know when you're starting a new argument.

Theory is beautiful but make it clear to the judge.

Procedural Fairness over all unless you fail to show me it is.

Kevin Cenac Paradigm

Not Submitted

Daborah Chester Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Gabrielle Clunie Paradigm

Debate Round Non-negotiables:

-time yourselves for prep and speeches

-your prep still runs even when sending email chain/sharing evidence

-face judge and stand while speaking (spreading is okay just be sure to hit clear tag lines)

-Roadmaps and signposts

-No swearing unless purposeful to the case presented

Case Debates: Really enjoy good case debates. Smart analytics and close reading of aff evidence can get the neg far.

Aff: MUST read your solvency in the 1AC. Fine with K Aff's.

Neg team: Make sure your speeches are organized that paints a clear picture of how you're proving that the SQUO is better. Blended case filled with T, DA's, CP's or K's. You will not win with a sole impact of extinction. It doesn't convince me...ever.

CX: Can be open.

Rebuttals: Must include clear impact calc.

Walter Diaz Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Monique Evans Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Gery Evans Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Everett Hackett Paradigm

Paradigm

I vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be an even competition of what happens in the round and how it affects the outside world instead of the other way around. Also don't do anything racist, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, heteronormative or simply disrespectful in round without expecting poor speaker points. It will also affect how I view your argumentation in this safe space.

Spreading

In regards to spreading I'm fine with it just don't start out at full speed I need time to adjust to voices. Also be clear and slow on tags so I can know what you are saying and what I should be voting on. I can't vote on something that I can't hear.

Seven Hunter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Julian Jimenez Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Willie Johnson Paradigm

8 rounds

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Amit Kukreja Paradigm

8 rounds

Updated for Harvard 2020

Conflicts: Any former/current students of Debatdrills, Success Academy, and Newark Science.

I’m Amit Kukreja and I debated for Newark Science in Newark, NJ for four years.

If it helps, I debated on the local NJ Circuit, the national circuit, and was a member of the USA Debate Team. I did PF for a couple of tournaments my freshman/sophomore year. I went to the TOC in LD my junior and senior year. I competed in policy my senior year at one national circuit tournament and received a bid in policy to the TOC and won the NJ State championship in policy. I debated internationally in worlds format for Team USA my senior year. For the better part of three years, I mainly did LD.


I like judging debates. I'm seriously a nerd. I don't judge at debate tournaments as much as some people do, but I watch debates. Like a lot of debates. I watch random debates online for 2 hours about capitalism vs. communism or about freedom of speech vs. censorship. I genuinely enjoy the art of argumentation and I believe it influences how I think about the world. However, I also really care about public speaking. The art of performing to me matters even more sometimes then the content of what is said, which means how you control the room/audience/judge is VERY integral to me. Basically -- keep me entertained. Yes you can spread. Yes you can read a thousand cards. But if I am not entertained in the debate, I just won't care that much about what you have to say. Find a way to grab my attention as the judge and hold on to that attention as much as you can. I like debate, I enjoy watching debates, but I need to be entertained to actually provide the energy it takes to vote for you. Make sure you get my attention and then use it to win your arg.

FOR HARVARD 2020 -

I would say I know a decent amount about the topic. Maybe not all the jargon, but a decent amount of stuff. I enjoy creative affs whether they are policy or kritikal, and I've enjoyed neg strats focused heavily on strategy of what the 2NR can look like.


SPECIFICS:

Kritiks:

I like these arguments. My main thing is framing in the 2NR when going for the K. I need to know why the alt matters, how it affects my ballot, why I shouldn't look to the aff, etc. I am becoming much more hesitant to the idealism of all Kritiks (i.e marxism solves everything) - so when going for the alt, please explain to me your links in order for me to grant you that a "rejection of cap" solves every problem. That doesn't mean I won't vote off a super vague alt or a general rejection alt or just an alt that is idealistic, my point is that when you explain it try to find ways for it to be a bit more material in explanation so I can contextualize what the alt does a bit better. Aff - go for the perm, disads to the alt, and explain why the aff solves the impacts to the K.

K affs are fine. Please just be able to explain the relation you have to the topic (if you do not have one, please explain why it's not relevant) and be able to explain what your method does to solve the impacts you've contextualized. If you don't really have a method that does something, I'm not going to be the most comfortable voting aff if I don't know exactly what I'm voting for.


CPs
I like really cool CPs with net benefits. Have net benefits. I really enjoy fun word pics or pics out of the aff which force the aff to engage. I'm fine with theory against abusive CPs.


DA's

These are fine as well, please explains turns case arguments and have uq. Explain the story of your disad in the 2NR vs just explaining each part individually. Impact analysis is really important for me.


Theory
Theory is fine. I like knowing what the abuse is. I'm fine with framework v k aff debates. These debates ultimately boil down to what purpose I believe debate should serve, so the team that better compares how debate as an activity allows specific impacts and contextualizes why those impacts are relevant will win in front of me.


Tricks
I dont really like this. Some tricks are fine, but aprioris and random theory shells are not cool. Don't read this in front of me please.


Speaker points -- I'm not that strict on points but even getting a 29 requires some hard work. I do believe some judges give out points at an inflated level way too much now. Being funny, being passionate, making the other debater look really bad, using CX to your advantage, weighing - that increases speaks. Seriously, i will fall asleep if you don't make the debate interesting. If you do, your points will reflect that.


Other than that, if you have any questions email me at akukreja227@gmail.com


Alex Landrum Paradigm

8 rounds

Pronouns: He/him she/her

I don't particularly care what pronouns you use, I'm mostly he/him or she/her. But this is a PSA you MUST respect pronouns. There is a difference between accident and intent

Affiliation: Wylie HS '18

Rutgers-Newark 22'

Contact: landrum.alex42@gmail.com

Experience: Wylie HS 15-18 – tfa circuit hs debate for 3 years.

Rutgers Newark – 2nd year debating NDT/CEDA policy for Rutgers

***TL;DR***

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

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

-Michael Antonucci

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

I also love Sion Bell's paradigm and almost all of it holds true so if you're into it check that out

***Full Paradigm***

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

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

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

Arguments:

Preface - I've run everything from politics, to afropess. My preference when I debate leans heavily critical, but I've run and judged strict policy strats too. I can judge whatever you want to throw at me and despite my personal argument choices I am just as happy to judge a good DA/CP as I am to judge a K v. K debate. This being said, don’t feel like its necessary to read the k just because I like it or it’s my specialty. I’d rather you do what you’re good at

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

I’ve spent most of my time and had most of my success with these kinds of affs but I’ve come to believe that most of these affs don’t do anything. This isn’t generally a problem except when I’ve judged these debates on the HS level most people can’t actually explain what these aff’s do (or don’t) and end up just explaining some theory of power. And neg teams just let these teams get away with doing nothing without forcing them to defend that.

K - I mostly debate the K and particularly enjoy it, but that means I generally have a higher threshold to vote on it. Ks should definitely have links engaging the actual implications of the 1AC (more than a state link). I would say I'm familiar with a number of lit bases but don't ever assume that I know what you're talking about. I’m reasonably up in the lit on afropess, queer theory, marx/cap, semiotics, lacan. Anything else I have not spent extensive time understanding. Regardless you should debate in a way that ensure EVERYONE in the room understands what you’re saying and ensures that you’re not pulling some obscure theory that I haven’t read. EXPLAIN. I’m not omniscient like I said.

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

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

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

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

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

***LD update Yale: I don’t like frivolous theory, I will likely never vote on it because I don’t think it has an impact or a point other than a “gotcha” in debates. You can try to prove me wrong if you wish. I’ve said I’m always open to changing my mind and you should absolutely read what you’re best at. This is a PSA though

Random thoughts

I like puns and scifi/comic references.

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

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

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

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

Monben Mayon Paradigm

8 rounds

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

Not best judge for theory

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

and

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

and

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

POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick questions and stuff: monbenmayon@gmail.com with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"

Lizbett Mendoza Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andres Monclut Paradigm

8 rounds

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

Heaven Montague Paradigm

8 rounds

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

Prachi Patel Paradigm

Hello!

Feel free to run any and all types of arguments.

Spreading is fine as long as I can understand you. Cross-x will be open and binding. Do not just read cards/ taglines without explaining them. That is not sufficient enough.

Make sure you are respectful towards one another. Being rude will dock you speaks. This is an educational space that everyone should be able to have fun in.

Ask any questions you may have before the round! Always remember to have fun and try your best.

Christine Poveda Paradigm

8 rounds

Hello my name is Christine Poveda. I debated four years of high school policy debate for Newark Science. I ran arguments both critically and politically. I am very familiar with the structure of how debaters choose to run every argument.

I enjoy listening to traditional arguments such as politics disadvantages and then also critical arguments. I don’t mind “theory” arguments; I just ask that you slow down. I will vote for these arguments if they have good impacts and a good overview.

*Speaker points*

  • Every argument must have a claim, warrant and an impact. Don’t just make up arguments using debate lingo. Talk about the evidence. If you use debate lingo as an argument, then I don’t expect the other team to answer it.
  • I can flow speed but I just ask that you explain either during cross x or during your speeches and NOT all throughout your rebuttals. I vote mainly based on my flow. However, I hate to solely make a decision based on a rebuttal because one team decided to finally explain at that very end. Clarity is everything.
  • Line by line is very important in my decision making. Direct clash is important as well. Therefore, I will grant higher speaker points if there is good line by line debating.

D/As - I like to listen to DAs as long as they have good story and not just a bunch of cards together. I want you to do a lot of comparisons when it comes down to a DA debate. I value smart analytics over the evidence in the cards. Lastly, I also believe the link precedes uniqueness. Please make sure you compare any impact calculus early on and the timeframe and magnitude in the beginning.

CPs - These arguments can get annoying if they end up coming down to theoretical arguments. I don’t mind voting on theoretical objections as long as they are well explained. No bullet points please.

The aff needs to have creative permutations and have a solid explanation. The neg should answer the permutation and have a solid response early on to avoid any shift in the aff. But a CP debate needs to compare both the solvency deficit and the risk of the case.

Ks- These are fun to listen to if I know what you’re talking about. I’m familiar with cap ks, imperialism ks, feminism, etc. So other than that, please just slow down. I actually like to listen to what you have to say.

Gabriela Resende Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Javon Ross Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jaye Ross Paradigm

8 rounds

CURRENT THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

I am currently working as an assistant coach to the Newark Science debate team. I am very much indebted to debate for the person that I am today. I find debate (and especially debate rounds) to be very much a part of life. This means that I would encourage everyone to understand that the things you say in a debate round have real implications even outside of the debate round. Fellow debaters and opponents in the past, present, and future are not just obstacles, but are other people whether that is outside or inside civil society. Debate does not allow the things you say to exist in a vacuum, so as a judge, coach, educator, and a petty black man I will not tolerate or evaluate the following ideas (LIKE EVER):

 

RACISM GOOD/ RACISM DOES NOT EXIST

SOCIAL DEATH GOOD

STOPPING WARMING WILL SOLVE RACISM

 

(These are the only things that come to mind at the moment, I know and will try and add more, but understand I put these first for a reason.)

 

BACKGROUND THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

I’m a proud member of the Eastside debate team senor class of 2014. I am the closest friend with Daniel Mendes (who all of sudden became a celebrity in HS debate) and Chaz Wyche (if you don’t know about him you shouldn’t worry about it to affect my judging.). From my time on the Eastside debate team (Eastside BR) I am a member of the few teams from Newark to ever get a TOC bid (Scranton 2013) in over a decade. All my time in policy debate has been devoted to traveling, and debating in national tournaments all over the country (Scranton, Yale, Georgetown, Emory, U-Penn, NAUDL, etc). During my travels I have had Elijah Smith (CEDA AND NDT 2012 CHAMPION), Chris Randall (CEDA AND NDT NATIONAL 2013 DEBATER, and also Elijah’s partner), and Willie Johnson (CEDA 2013 FINAL ROUND JUDGE) as my coaches and most influential to my success as a debater. I am luck enough to have even judged at the college level of policy debates at tournaments such as Vermont, and West point and look forward to judging the HS level. 

 

DEBATE THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

GENERIC THING WITH JAYE:

 

I’ll try and be quick and painless for the people who are waiting to know how they should pref me. Now I have judged policy, critical, and performance, but I find performance to be the debates I’m truly most comfortable with. If you could not tell by the three coaches I have stated above, I am very familiar with performance rounds and by coincidence I am also a performance debater. I ran an Afro-pessimist critiques in all my national tournaments my senior year (exception Yale and Georgetown: I ran Decolonaility, there is a difference btw). At all the other the tournaments I have read at least 2 Wilderson cards in every speech I’ve given. There are other authors that I read that talk about anti-blackness, but the point is that if you are talking about black people I have probably read the books/articles they came from. Now policy is by no means something I can’t judge. No performance debaters I know have started out running performance arguments, the same is true for me that I had to learn policy debate in order to be the debater I am today so I’ll talk about the specifics of policy first. 

 

POLICY THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

TOPICALLY

 

  • AFF

You should pick up on whether the negative will truly go for the argument, and let that choose how you will answer in the 2ac and 1ar. Reasonability is a really strong argument in front of me, but that does not excuse you for dropping any arguments that can be used to make topically important.

  • NEG

I do evaluate topically. If you are going for topically you need to go hard people. I will not vote for topically if you don’t hard for me in the block. I need in round abuse, topical versions of the Aff, and voters that are going to be impacted in the round in order for me to take topically as more than a time crew you thought of for the round. If you actually do go for topically in the 2nr (which I would be beyond shock and a little impressed if you do it well) to make me vote on topically you need to go for this argument for the whole five minutes. Topically is a prior question in the round it would only make sense to just go for topically in the 2nr. The way I see topically used now as a time screw for a very minimal infraction of the Affirmative that is probably resolved through reasonability.   

 

THEORY

  • AFF

 The best thing you could do for me would to try and set up theory in cross x. A simple “What is the status of the off case position?” would help me to at least prepare for a theory debate. I also like theory on a separate flow so that needs to be in the order at the beginning of the speech.  That helps me evaluate the separate offense and defense on that debate. Theory like topically needs to have same time spent on it in order for me to vote for this argument. Your tagline will not be enough for me.  

  • NEG

It is of the utmost importance for you to set this argument up in cross x for me if you can. Theory should also be on a separate flow, and similar to what I said on the Aff. You need to spend time on his to have me vote on this.  

FRAMEWORK

 

  • AFF

For the Affirmative the framework is really helpful to how I should evaluate. I can guest that a utilitarian framework is the way to evaluate your impacts or you can tell that utilitarianism is the framework, and give some comparative analysis if the negative has their own framework.  A role of the ballot and judge is something you also want in any 2ac because it makes sense.

  • NEG

I’m talking about the “Resolved means a USFG topical policy action”. This type of frame is the scorn of my life. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard this argument. I WILL CRINGE EVERY TIME I HEAR THIS ARGUEMNT. I will unfortunately listen to the argument, but no one will like this debate. I believe that you should probably just run the topical version of the plan against whatever Aff you didn’t care to engage with. You can still weight all the education and ground arguments, but we now have a better debate, and I’ll be a lot happier.

AFFFIRMATIVE

 

All Policy affirmatives NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE INTERNAL LINK AND THE IMPACT OF EACH ADVANTAGE. I also need a clear line to the SOLVENCY AND HOW THAT WORKS FOR EACH ADVANTAGE. The Aff should tell a story and have a good flow to it. This means the Aff should not be you trying to read as many cards as you can in the 1ac. The 1ac should be slow on tags to contribute to the idea of telling a story. Even policy Affs can be creative. Don’t be afraid to something other than nuclear war/extinction and have some cool advantage with a framework behind how I should evaluate the advantage. The best example of this I can tell you is probably structural violence advantage that stops something like police brutally, but this will require work. I will be happy to see that effort in a debate round and be sure to recognize you in some way for that work.   (Probably a speaker higher)

 

DISADVANTAGES

 

They are ok, but make sure think is a clear link to the Aff. You also need to tell me how to evaluate this impact in round. The answer is YES! I would like a specific impact calculus for the round that compares all the impacts in the round.

 

COUNTER PLANS

If the counter plan doesn’t make any sense after the permutation then I will probably not vote for the counter plan. It needs to complete. That means a net benefit and a reason why the Aff is a bad idea. I believe that even if the counter plan solves the Aff it does not mean game over. The negative still needs a reason why the Aff is a bad idea on top of the net benefit or I will just vote Aff on the permutation. 

 

CRITICAL THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

 

 

  • AFFIRMATIVE

 

This for the Affirmative that have a plan text, but have a very philosophical background:

YOUR AWSOME 

 

  • CRITQUE

 

I LOVE CRITQUES, BUT IF YOU DON”T KNOW THE LITERATURE I WILL NOT LIKE YOU. This simply means if you read a critique you should have picked a book and read. Not just the introduction, but have read the book. You can easily tell an experience K debater from someone who is just beginning. I find that people can earn high speaks here, but with all high speaks they come to those who have a working knowledge of the hell they are talking about. Know Your Stuff. Links need to be as clear as possible. The better the link story, the better the speaker points. The alternative needs to solve the Aff or resolve the essential question posed in the debate. Make sure I know what the world of the alternative looks like. If you say that you end the work I need to know what the process looks like because my ballot will final end the world and I’ll take great pride in that.  

 

 

PREFORMANCE THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

  • AFFIRMATIVE

As stated above I’m very comfortable with this argument. Be sure to have some clear connection to the topic. IF YOU RUN THIS ARGUMENT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SUN SHINES (not really tho)

  • NEGATIVE

I do believe that the negative can also have performances. These are really trick to deploy in a round sometime, but when done correctly they are one the most powerful arguments in debate. I prefer these debates to happen when the Aff gives there performance, and he neg provides a counter performance/methodology. These argument hold a special place in my heart as this was the only I ran on the negative of my senior. There is nothing special you get from me by reading this argument but that shouldn’t hinder you from reading this argument in front on me anyway.    

 

 

END OF THNGS WITH JAYE

 

 

Osmane Sanogo Paradigm

8 rounds

yo whats up? I’m Osmane and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years. I was pretty average for a debater, never really too high level and barely won anything so take that in to account when preffing me.

Bring me Krispy Creme Donuts and i'll boost your speaker points by 0.2
Buy me a packaged pickle (Like Van Holten's) and ill bost them by 0.3

GO SLOWER THAN NORMAL! I haven't judged in a solid minute and know only surface layer knowledge about this topic. I also have trouble hearing in general sometimes, so clarity is really important in front of me. I'll say clear twice before i start deducting speaks instead of saying clear.

Osmane's Cheat Sheet:

1 - Traditional Debate (Morals, not phil, like old school LD debate)

2 - Identity-related kritiks (fair warning: I'm not too good with highly abstract interpretations of identity),

3 - Counterplans, Disadvantages, Topicality

4 - Theory

Wildcard: Untopical Affirmatives - The more feasible/material it is to me, the more receptive it'll be to me. An untopical aff to use rhetoric in debate rounds to spread positivism is probably more receptive than an aff about throwing trash around as a symbolic way of fighting back against capitalism through ecological BURST!

I'm a first year, so DON'T assume that my judging will reflect the way I debated. I'm a wild card and you should pref me as such.

My email for speech docs is osmaneprince1@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Darius White, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy.

Note: Most of those influences are HIGHLY material people who take abstract things to their logical ends (i said most of them.). This means a material K that I can see logically working is better than some convoluted junk I can't understand. Use more common talk with me than debate jargon, I barely ever understood it.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

Basic things:

don't say racist, sexist, or messed up things like Death is good.

I enjoy a slower delivery to spread where I hear emphasis and a more persuasive approach to vocalizing your arguments. I'll award higher speaks if you speak as if you were an impassioned speaker.

Kritiks

I read these most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as anti blackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. I'm very material in alternative explanations, so if you don't explain the alternatives . . let's just say winning your K will be harder. If your going to be running some sort of post-modernism, I HAVE ALMOST NEVER understood the abstract way people run it, so run it 'materially' if possible. I might not be the best for it but I'd rather you go for POMO that your good at then messing up hard on some identity-based K

CPs

wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.

Tricks

ha. HA. HA! HA! no.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I debated for Newark, people think I hate theory which is pretty damn right. I hate frivolous theory and the rigid technicality based formatting of theory. If it's legitimate and I'm like "yeah naw that opponent did some abusive junk" i'll consider it though. I rather you make it an in-round disad as opposed to a separate theoretical argument. I default Education > Fairness, Reasonability and drop the argument.

DA’s

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

Plans

eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.

Presumption.

I don't like voting on this because everyone has their own idea of how it works. This is mine:

Neg has presumption until they read some sort of alternative (via k, cp, or whatever.) then it shifts to aff.

Perms:

you drop it you lose.

Speaker points

Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.

Hannah Stafford Paradigm

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I coached the Blake School until 2019, now I teach/coach debate at Success Academy Midtown West.

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

I am not as familiar with the post-modern literature - so just make sure you are clearly explaining the alternative. Most of the K literature I know well is race and gender based.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

This is a new tabroom account so for my full judging history go to - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=19237

Amna Tariq Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Miriam Tariq Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kris Towkaniuk Paradigm

Not Submitted

Honoria Wah Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Chaz Wyche Paradigm

8 rounds

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

Lynn Yeboa Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

joshua gonzalez Paradigm

8 rounds

background: I have four years of high school debate experience(2005-2009), two years of college experience (2009-2011), followed by two years of HS coaching experience. I judge anything and everything, with no qualms of any arguments made. I am an open listener and leave any personal biases at the door. On a personal note, I study political theory and follow politics pretty closely, so that will always grab my attention but will never be used against you or in your favor. All I ask is that by the time you get to the rebuttals, there is a strong emphasis on comparative analyses. I love overviews with powerful opening statements and I am not one to be fixated over strictly line-by-line argumentation; if one team "drops" an argument on the line-by-line but I find that the same team does a sufficient job in addressing the argument in the overall analysis, then I will not necessarily consider the argument dropped. But it is the responsibility of both teams to give me a clear reason for decision at the end of the round with a detailed explanation of why I should weigh your arguments and why it is of utmost importance that I consider your arguments as a priority over the other team.

A note on topicality and framework, it is an absolute must to discuss/debate this if both teams are not on the same page in terms of how the rules are played. By default, I interpret the resolution as is: the affirmative intends to have a policy plan adopted by the United States Federal Government (meaning at least one or more of the agents outlined in Articles I through III of the constitution, exercising their enumerated and implied powers) to resolve the resolution. If the affirmative chooses to diverge from a course of policy action that is to be adopted by the United States Federal Government, then I believe expectations should by outlined by the affirmative on how the debate should happen. The negative has to prove why the affirmative, the resolution, and/or their alternative framework is a bad idea. As mentioned, this is how I view how the debate should happen by default but feel free to change my mind as long as you explain why!

On a final note, don't presume that I know how your arguments function. Debate constantly evolves which is a great thing, but I have not been in the game for several years, meaning you should define your plan, counterplan, kritique, DA and how they function in the context of the debate and how I should make my decision.