2015 — CT/US
Graham Ambrose Paradigm
Stanley Baxter Paradigm
I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework,
My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine.
Sanoja Bhaumik Paradigm
Tanasia Brown Paradigm
Alyaa Chace Paradigm
George Clemens Paradigm
Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.
Tiffany Dacheux Paradigm
Forensics Team coach for Dallastown since 2014
Speed and Decorum:
Send me your case. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused, and generally just make me happier. (Please…and thank you!) If its an organized case, that’s just even better!
Spreading…I can follow it when I have the speech DOC, at least a skeletal outline (preferably written), or clear signposts which are different in emphasis/tone. Real talk time: this is key if you will be spreading in rebuttal.
I really do not care if you sit, stand, or perform yoga poses while you speak. I vaguely care that you remain in the room, and do not want you to touch me/your opponent but other than that pick your own position.
I don't time the debate or prep time, therefore you should. If need me to time, please tell me. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.
I’d rather not touch…well…ANYONE, so can we NOT shake hands?
Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)
I do not like theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.
You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.
Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!
Tricks = no. Thanks.
Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round.
Nick DiBartolo Paradigm
Karen Eaves Paradigm
Jeff Eikelberner Paradigm
Likes: signposting; solid evidence/links and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of evidence; well constructed arguments that are on point and do justice to the important topics being debated; and good speaking skills.
Philosophy: I'm familiar with a few common LD frameworks but beyond that, it's to your advantage to err on the side of explanation.
Speed: I can't flow circuit-level speed and pushing that limit won't make me more likely to vote for you. I can flow fast conversational pace. I will let you know if I can't flow you by saying slow or clear, but by then it means I've already missed something.
Theory: should be avoided.
K's: I am unlikely to be persuaded by role of the ballot arguments. I will listen to post-fiat critical philosophy provided that explanation is clear.
Debate judging experience: parent of a VLD debater from Princeton High School and have judged at several tournaments.
Robbie Flatow Paradigm
Jordanne Gizzarelli Paradigm
Background: I debated for four years for Newburgh Free Academy. I was a policy and LD debate. I primarily did policy for my first two years and LD in my last two years, both circuit style debate. This is my fifth year coaching/judging for the Lexington Debate. I was both a critical and traditional debater so feel free to run whatever you like. Speed is 100% fine with me just be clear.I am currently a graduate student in New York City getting my Master's in Biological Sciences, with the intentions of attending Medical School next fall. I have been judging debate since 2014 in both Policy and LD.
My Theory on Theory:
In the past, I have viewed theory pretty negatively. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I will vote on it if you keep these things in mind:
1. If you say that you should have access to an RVI, tell me what constitutes an RVI. I generally do not accept "I meets" as a reason to access an RVI, but feel free to change my mind.
2. If the opposing debater is giving me a bunch of "I meets," annihilating the standards, or doing anything else to take out a significant part of the argument, I am not going to penalize them for simply not having a counter interp.
3. I have had tons of rounds in which debater N has a theoretical objection to the 1AC. Debater A then responds with a counter interp in the 1AR. By then end of the round, I have offense that links to both interps, and no reason to prefer one shell/standard over the other. Do not leave me in this position. Find ways to layer the theory debate and explain how standards interact.
4. No new 2AR theory.
5. Tell me why your theoretical objection comes before another
Kritiks: The Kritik is by far my favorite position in Policy and LD debate. Know what you are talking about. The explanation of the K needs to be done outside of of the author: for example, if you are running D&G, don't drop the term rhizomatic expansion and think that I know what that means. Explain it. Nothing gets me upset than a K team that drops terms and does not explain how those terms interact with the argument. I hate boring and generic links, do you work! Make sure to have a link scenario. The alternative, I feel is the most important mechanism of the K. Explain to me why the alternative is the most important part of the K and why this is the only way to accomplish the plan/case/WHATEVER.
Disadvantages: I don’t mind a few DAs here and there just don’t over kill it! Please if you are going to run politics don’t make it ridiculous and make sure your internal link is new and not something from four years ago.
Counterplans: Counterplans are counterplans I’ll vote on it if it’s there.
Truth vs. Tech--I will evaluate arguments based on the flow and will do very little work to imagine some "embedded clash" that isn't there. But at the end of the debate I will decide each argument by asking who I feel won it based solely on the arguments presented in the round.
Strat: Establish your position/advocacy. Link. Impact. Weigh extensively. Tell me why I should vote for you. If you do not tell me what to do with a given point "x", I will not vote off it unless there is literally nothing else for me to vote off of. Do not assume that I will auto extend drops, or that I will impact/link/weigh cross applications for you. It's your job to tell me why you win, explain it to me like you would explain it to your parents! Act like I don’t know (even though I do) *this will also result in better speaker points*. If something is important to my ballot, please tell me so, and spend time on it don’t glance over it. * I am 100% okay with any kind of case. Do what you like this is your show!
John Hordines Paradigm
Background: I debated for Newburgh Free Academy for four years in LD and dabbled in Policy a bit. Did mostly circuit style debate.
Preferences: The only thing I really do not want to see in a round is frivolous theory debate. If there is actual abuse in round, go for it, but if you're just running theory for the sake of running it, do that in a round that I'm not judging. Other than that, I'm good with anything, I enjoy critical arguments and policy arguments alike. Speed is fine. Something odd worth mentioning is that I find well written analytic arguments to be persuasive.
Riba Hossain Paradigm
I did policy in high school for 3 years and then spent some time in LD my senior year. I now do college debate because I either hate myself or love this activity??
I tend to prefer watching k/performance rounds but I will vote on anything as long as you win it(unfortunately that includes disclosure theory)
I vote off the flow, but that should still take into account that everyone has biases- just cause I will vote on it doesn't mean that convincing me to vote on a terrible interp isn't going to be an uphill battle.
My major is essentially a cap K, stop running it badly in front of me.
That's all I have to say because no one has time to read or write detailed paradigms anyways. Feel free to ask me questions.
Zhengyu Huang Paradigm
Alexander Jang Paradigm
Jennifer Johnson Paradigm
Wesley Kendall Paradigm
I attended Chandler High School in AZ and competed LD for more or less three of those years. I now attend Rutgers University, but do not debate anymore.
- PLEASE WEIGH BECAUSE IT IS MUCH HARDER TO EVALUATE THE ROUND IF YOU DON'T. This really should go without saying but too many debaters do NOT do sufficient weighing. Also EXPLICITLY MAKE EXTENSIONS because I am not going to evaluate an argument unless it is extended (you don't have to say the word extend but make it clear to me what you're doing).
- If I don't hear an argument I am not going to flow it or evaluate it. Please be clear and slow down for taglines and what not.
- Don't like spikes and probably won't vote on them unless you go all out on them. Gotta take risk to get reward.
- Don't lose track of prep time; if you forgot how much time you had left I'm going to assume you didn't have any. I don't count flashing as prep time but be reasonable about it..
- I don't have the highest threshold for theory but the more time you devote to it the more I am inclined to vote on it. Most debaters that I have seen do not spend nearly enough time to theory for me to consider voting on it.
- I default to reasonability and drop the argument unless asked to otherwise.
- I enjoy Ks and hearing good K debate. I find a lot of K alts I hear somewhat lame so you need to do a good job of telling me why your alternative solves for the harms listed in your kritik.
- Disads have link stories that don't really make sense to me but I'll evaluate them as well as any argument. Please explain why your impacts are significant; that is, weigh them under some sort of framework.
- CPs are fine but don't forget to weigh their impacts under some sort of framework!
If you have specific questions, please ask.
Ashley Kim Paradigm
I debated for four years for Timothy Christian School and graduated in 2014.
**NEW: PLEASE READ**
What makes me really happy and engaged in rounds: Cases with a strong, unique framework, and that tell a story or paint a picture that appeals to emotion, logic, and intuition. Debaters who extend their frameworks, actively impact arguments back to them, and use their frameworks to exclude their opponents arguments when possible.
What makes me really sad and bored in rounds: Generic util frameworks like "maximizing well-being", "maximizing happiness", "societal well-being", which lead to debaters to try to cover too much in the round and then eventually mutually agree implicitly or explicitly that whoever achieves X wins the round.
I value substance and clash (engaging with and actually addressing the warrant of your opponent's argument, weighing, etc.)
I'll evaluate any argument or position as long as it's well-warranted and you give me a working method of evaluation.
Theory is fine as long as you prove that there is actual abuse in the round.
I don't want a line-by-line off-time roadmap. Give me a general roadmap (e.g. "Framework, AC, NC") then signpost (e.g. "Contention 1 subpoint A", "the Neg f/w", "their second contention", etc.) as you debate.
Please confirm with your opponent that you're both okay with flex-prep, evidence sharing, etc. before the round starts.
I have not judged varsity much in the past couple years. It is safe to assume that I have little to no familiarity with circuit arguments. If you run circuit-type arguments, I will do my best to evaluate your position, but it is your burden to be absolutely clear about what is happening in the round. I can evaluate new information, but I don't know all the technicalities associated with circuit arguments.
Please give me a method of evaluation for the round, and link contention level arguments into whichever method you think is winning in the round. Please weigh arguments. I'll flow new arguments and analyses in second rebuttal speeches but I won't vote on them. I generally accept new cross applications, since those involve pre-existing arguments.
I assign speaker points on a 25-30 point scale. Speaker points will reflect how I perceived your ability to make and extend effective arguments, and strategize overall. (25 - completely unprepared, 26 - below average, 27 - average, 28 - good, 29 - very well-done, 30 - excellent; offensive arguments may go below a 25; I don't believe I've ever given lower than a 26 before, and my average is probably around a 28; I try to be a little more lenient with novice speaks, but this doesn't always happen; I also try to assign speaks relatively, based on previous rounds within the tournament)
Good arguments and extensions include a claim, warrant(s), and impact(s). I'll give some leeway to aff extensions, but they must include more than the label ("the value criterion," "Contention 2," "the impact," "[insert card name]"). If an argument is dependent on another argument, you should extend all relevant parts to make your point. If you're the Neg debater and have ample time to do so, I expect a thorough extension of all relevant points. If you're the Aff, please at least extend the claims of the underlying points and explain the important one as needed.
If you are a more experienced debater obviously facing a novice or non-native English speaker, and I detect abuse (spreading, tricks, etc.), this will probably reflect in your speaks.
I won't say you can't spread, but just know that the faster you go and less clear you are, the greater risk you run of me not understanding your arguments. The faster you go, the more I'm just listening for key words and less I'm actually trying to understand what you're saying. If you are going to spread, start slow then speed up. Slow down for tags and card names and anything you really want me to understand/write down. I'll say clear if I don't understand you, and if I say it twice you should consider permanently slowing down.
Recently debaters have started sharing cases via email/USB? This is fine, but don't bother asking me to share your case with me in advance. I'll evaluate the round based on my interpretation of what happened in speeches - if both debaters are clear, my interpretation should be pretty close to what actually happened in the round. I only call for evidence after the round if I feel I need it to make my decision, but this doesn't happen often. If I couldn't understand your evidence/I didn't evaluate it the way you wanted me to, you probably weren't as clear in the round as I needed you to be.
Overall, I'm pretty technical (or I try my best to be at least), but when the round is unclear or very close, I'll probably end up looking for the easiest way to evaluate and judge the round. With that said, if you can appeal to both being technical and giving me an easy way to judge the round, not only will I probably consider your arguments more positively, it will probably also reflect well in your speaks.
Side note: You can ask me to time your speeches/prep for you, but based on experience, I've learned that I am generally a poor time-keeper. I highly prefer debaters to time themselves and each other, and especially keep track of prep-time. If you at least want me to write down your remaining prep time, I will do that for you, just let me know.
I've judged PF many times now in the past couple years; I understand PF debate is supposed to appeal to persuading the general public, but like LD, I evaluate the round pretty technically. I also get that there isn't exactly a framework structure in PF, but at least give me some sort of method of evaluation. After all, there must be something that you're trying to achieve. So make that goal explicit, and link back to it throughout the round.
The problem I've had with most PF rounds is that clash/weighing is done poorly, so the round ends up unnecessarily close, making it very difficult for me to make a decision. Please, as best as you can, don't let this happen!
As with LD, I am not a good time keeper, and am even worse with PF. Everyone should keep track of their own time and each other's time.
I will dock speaks for unprofessional dress. I'm fine with casual professional dress and I'm pretty reasonable overall, but you should not come tournaments in sweats and sneakers. If you have special circumstances that prevented you from dressing appropriately and you're worried that I am going to dock your speaks, you can notify me before the round - pass me a note or something if it's a private issue.
Rinnah Kim Paradigm
Jerry Korten Paradigm
Matt Lanning Paradigm
Reza Lotfi Paradigm
Hi, I was a PF debater for the Montville, NJ team back in high school. Since I graduated, I’ve been judging LD a lot. However, I have no experience actually debating LD. Keep that in mind if I’m judging you in LD. Some of the more advanced topics and lingo such as theory shells, RVIs, and spikes still escape my understanding because nobody has properly explained them to me and I haven’t gone out of my way to figure them out myself. If you’re going to use advanced LD techniques, make sure you explain them to me well enough so I can understand them. If I don’t, I just won’t consider them in my decision. However, I’ve done a large amount of amateur philosophy reading, so I can definitely understand most philosophical arguments and schools of thought well. Most of all, please actually attack your opponent’s arguments while explaining to me why your argument is better. There’s nothing I dislike judging more than a debate where both debaters are just repeating their own arguments with no actual conflict.
In summary, if a 0 is a parent judge who has never even sat in a debate round before (PF or LD), and a 10 is a TOC LD Champion judge, think of me as a 7.
Feng Lu Paradigm
Yelena Lysenko Paradigm
Sergio Martinez Paradigm
Josh Melnick Paradigm
Melinda Nye Paradigm
Jack O'Malley Paradigm
Nancy O'Sullivan Paradigm
Dolores Parker Paradigm
Jocelyn Polan Paradigm
Russell Ricciardi Paradigm
Judging Paradigm - updated August 31, 2016
SUMMARY DESIGNATION FOR UPCOMING YALE 2016: TRADITIONAL
I view academic competitive debate as a species of communication arts. You should speak clearly, and presume as little as possible about your audience and your judge. I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round. I will generally not ask to see evidence after the round, even if advised to do so by the opposing team. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly. The burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine. You might say I am rather old-fashioned. Nonetheless, I have voted for “critical philosophy” cases on the rare occasions I have heard them. The key to my ballot is to present the argument logically, clearly, and persuasively.
At any tournament sponsored or sanctioned by the New York State Forensic League, including particularly all Long Island Forensic League (LIFA) tournaments, I will expect that the primary focus of the debate be on the clash of values or value-criteria. This expectation is supported by the definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate as given by the NYSFL:
>> Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a form of … debate that focuses on values, their inter-relationships, and their relationship to issues of contemporary human concern. The focus is not upon facts to be ascertained or policies to be implemented, although such matters can be referred to as supporting material. Rather, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate should require the students to explain in a persuasive manner the most important values and criteria for judgment about the resolution under debate.<<
The definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate by the National Catholic Forensic League is brief:
>>Individual students debating issues of values and philosophy.<<
In light of the NCFL statement, at any competition under the auspices of the CFL, my judging emphasis on values and philosophy, in preference over policy considerations, will be at least as strong as the emphasis I will bring to any NYSFL-related tournaments.
In contrast, the website of the National Speech and Debate Association (National Forensic League) provides a more flexible description:
>>Many people refer to LD Debate as a “values” debate, as questions of morality and justice are commonly examined.<<
The NSDA statement is much weaker that the two previous statements. It does not place values at the center of the debate necessarily, and it is a qualified descriptive statement, not a normative statement.
As I do not find any stronger authoritative universal statement concerning the relative importance of the values framework to the policy considerations in an LD debate, I will strive to keep an open mind on this point in all competitions not sponsored by the NYSFL or NCFL or their affiliates. I will expect the debaters to each make their case as to how the debate should be decided.
In the Public Forum format, debaters should strive to make themselves and their arguments intelligible to the average citizen, not presupposing that their judges or audience have any prior experience, training, or knowledge of interscholastic debate nor the topic under consideration.
High School: Policy debate, local circuit (1974-77)
Total four years local circuit (1981-82, 1986-87, 2014-16)
A few national circuit tournaments in the Northeast
Attended teacher training track in Public Forum at 2015 Harvard Summer Workshop
If you have any questions or comments for me about this paradigm, or any other Speech and Debate matters,
feel free to contact me at: email@example.com
Paradigm originally posted to WikiSpaces Feb. 13, 2015. Last previous revision December 22, 2015.
Cristina Rushton Paradigm
Nicholas Santiago Paradigm
Elysia Segal Paradigm
Sarita Shah Paradigm
I've been judging LD for several years and am familiar with the common positions and arguments. Please keep your speed at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names. If your strategy relies on your opponent missing a blip, then I'm not the judge for you.
Theory and T is fine, but I will be sympathetic to your opponent if your shell is clearly trivial.
If you read an alternate role of the ballot, please make it clear how I should evaluate the round under your ROB. All extensions need to be clearly warranted. Add me to any email chains.
Kira Sheinerman Paradigm
I am a parent judge. I judged NLD last year and I have judged both NLD and VLD this year. Some speed is fine but no spreading. My decision will be based on the strengths of the arguments and weighing.
You can run CPs, Theory, Ks, or whatever you want, but please explain them well. I strongly value relevant arguments that are supported by empirical evidence and logical warrants.
The burden is on you to persuade me!