Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament

2018 — Northbrook and Glenview, IL/US

Shireen Abesteh Paradigm

7 rounds

K's are fine if you explain them well enough. I enjoy debates on CP+DA or T. Theory debates are fine as well.

I debated for 4 years at Maine East.

Umar Ahmed Paradigm

6 rounds

Yes I would like to be on the email chain:

Fine with just about anything. Be CLEAR. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand you I am not flowing you. Signpost. please and thanks.

Some wisdom from the greatest person ever, "Please do not try to shake my hand after debates. I am your judge, not your friend. Don't make things weird." - Vinay Patel

More Vinay wisdom, " I am not perfect. I am not a machine. Connect with me (on important arguments, not as friends. I don't want to be your friend). Make Arguments. Say Words."

Turing Testing? Hell Yeah!

Jokes about the following people may help your speaks. (Jokes that are not funny or are mean will result in a reduction in speaker points): Nate Glancy, Dylan Chikko, & Connor Doughty.

Maricela Alvarez Paradigm

7 rounds ( please add me to the email chain)


3 years of policy debate at Lane I don't debate in college but since I just graduated I'm up to date with this year's topic. I was a K debater for most of my debate career, but I am most comfortable with identity politics.

Speaker points-

Tag team in cross-x is fine by me. However, if your partner does all the talking for you I will take speaker points, I need to see that you understand the arguments you are making. I need you to be clear and coherent when spreading otherwise speed is fine for me. Be polite to each other ( Being sassy is ok it makes the debate interesting but being rude is not acceptable) if I feel I that you are rude i.e making snide remarks about the other team or interrupting your partner I will take peaker points away and without saying anything at all. For high speaks just demonstrate you know what you are talking about and can properly explain the arguments.


Being a k debater myself I will listen to those arguments however if you run arguments such as Nietzsche and Baudrillard, make sure you take time to explain your argument in plain English. If you run k's in any aspect I will need for you to win the FW debate and sow that you actually know what you are talking about, I will not vote for you just because you run k's. Cp's, Da's, Fw, theory, args I'm fine with. On Topicality, I don't like voting on it however if the other team mishandles it or the neg properly handles it ( actually takes the time to explain the violation interpretation and standards not just speeding through them.) I will vote for it. Other than Know that as long as you don't make me do the work for you in the debate you'll be fine.

The overall round-

My RFD's typed out will only be a sentence long at most. ( I just don't like typing out long RFDs) The same goes for my comments, I, however, a more in-depth RFD and comments orally. Any questions regarding a specific argument made in the round ask me I will answer to the best of my ability/opinion. I'm also willing to discuss how I should have gone about the round if you want me to say so.


Racism, sexism, anti-black, homophobic, etc. behaviour will not be tolerated. That is both in argument and outside. Be careful in how you frame your arguments. Please don't try to make turns to these arguments (I have run into those argument multiple times before.) This will result in the reduction of all speaker points and a very unpleasant talk.

Any questions regarding a specific argument ask me or email me.

Eliana Bender Paradigm

2 rounds

niles west '19

Aasiyah Bhaiji Paradigm

7 rounds

aasiyah bhaiji (she/her) glenbrook south class of 2020

put me on the email chain: a(dot)bhaijidebate(at)gmail(dot)com

policy debater from gbs, debated 3 years of high school (china, education, immigration). i have a pretty solid understanding of the arms sales topic but i am a bit behind on certain acronyms and nitpicky politics that happened post camp.

specialized primarily in soft left policy arguments, but i have a new found appreciation for "big stick" impacts that have coherent scenarios.

i appreciate well debated counterplans and critiques with alts that actually do something. also politics disads with updated ev are my favorite kinds of debates.

theory is silly but i do agree that fiating international actors should have it's limits.

i really do hope topicality isn't still a thing, idrk if there will ever be a solid interp to "substantial" but hey, i default to reasonability.

i find myself less and less convinced by framework speeches that whine about how you can't engage the aff because they were unpredictable (be more creative, it's 2020). on the framework note, i think topic education is the most relevant and convincing impact (take that as you will).

pls don't just read cards, debate is about thinking on the fly and using skills to convince me that i should vote for you. smart debaters who can think on their feet and not read blocks that their varsity handed to them will be rewarded in the speaker point division of my job.

debate and i have a weird relationship, i am a judge because i want to make the space a better place to you all than it was to me, so don't ever be afraid to ask me questions or talk to me.

things that are non-negotiable:

-treat your partner, opponents and judges with respect. at the end of the day we are all here because we enjoy the activity

-arguments that belittle/mock anyone's sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, mental health etc. are an auto 25 and a strong worded conversation with your coach

-be kind, the best debates are the ones where you forget you have opponents

-do not call me judge, my name is pronounced (ah-see-ya).

-i have the final say in timings

Alice Bowe Paradigm

4 rounds

Hi my names Alice, I'm a senior at New Trier High School and this is my 3rd year of debate. my email is

Be BOLD, TAKE RISKS, If it's well thought out, you're unlikely to be punished :)

- Ask me questions, do good debate stuff, be polite :)

-No trigger warnings, if you have them, please tell the other team, if you are worried your aff might have some, ask the other team

-If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable with the content of the debate or someone's action, tell the other team or person to stop, if that would make it worse, then email me and I'll try to make sure we can have a good educational debate where everyone feels comfortable arguing :)

-I need to be able to justify my decision based on what was said in the round. :)

-I will read cards if you ask politely :)

-I'll vote on pretty much anything B)

-Be nice :D

-stand for cross-x, and face me, or I'll ignore it B)

-she/her :)

AFFs-- DO WHAT YOU WANT! I would like to understand your aff so please try to break it down to me in cx if you have the opportunity. I evaluate solvency before the impacts unless you give me a reason to evaluate as try or die. I like having warrants and multiple ways of solving. I think that affs that read a ton of impacts should lose to solvency takeouts. K affs are cool sometimes.

DAs-- i like this argument but you probably shouldn't go for this argument alone unless you're sure it outweighs and turns case. I like politics, you just need to do a good job winning a unique link, I'm down to vote on a thumper. ._.

CPs-- Process CPs are cheating, Consult CPs are cheating, and plan plus are cheating, of course, it's up to you to prove that, but that's not hard. I like to see competition, and I like to see solvency. I need perms explained to me, something beyond we can do both, but how would they interact. I'm pretty much down for any other kind of CP that does something else. >.<

Theory-- It's so much more convincing when you prove in round abuse. I'm still down to vote for potential abuse and what they justify, but less so. I'm also more likely to reject the arg, not the team. B)

T-- yeah, why not, just make sure you compare your education and fairness ._.

K-- I like K's when they're explained thoroughly.

Gabe Burdeen Paradigm

4 rounds

GBN '19

Indiana University '23 (not debating)



You should strike me if

1. You present an affirmative that does not defend hypothetical USFG action

2. You rely on negative strategies that do not justify a rejection of the affirmative's proposed plan of action

3. You debate in ways that show absolute disregard for decorum, as defined by the American Debate Association

Debaters and judges should treat one another with civility during debates and when debate decisions are revealed and discussed. Debaters and judges should treat one another with generosity, respect and kindness. Participants (debaters, judges, coaches, observers, etc.) may not engage in any nudity, sexually explicit or illegal behavior, or use illegal substances while at the location of the debate rounds or during a debate.

Thoughts about debate

T -- Legal precision determines all other standards, logically, I personally find it hard to believe that your disliking of resolutional wording gives you the right to exclude an affirmative from debate. Topicality asks whether the affirmative is within the scope of the resolution, not whether the resolution makes certain affirmatives harder to debate than others.

Disadvantages -- Must be intrinsic to the affirmative's proposed plan of action, I find most "politics disadvantages" read on the national circuit do not meet the aforementioned standard and thus am very compelled by argumentation that recognizes this. I also feel most negative teams are unprepared for this type of debate as well and affirmatives should exploit this.

Counterplans -- In the absence of a negative resolution, almost all theoretical objections to counterplans are inherently arbitrary and unpredictable, under the condition that the negative wins the premise that negative fiat is legitimate. Objections to counterplans should be filtered through a lens of competition, not theoretical legitimacy.

Critiques -- Are often highly unpersuasive to me, and chances are you're better off not reading one in front of me. I find that most of theses arguments I debated in high school were highly generic and/or borderline immoral.

Debaters should speak comprehensively and intelligibly while giving speeches and engaging in cross-examination. Debaters should refrain from shouting or yelling while speaking. Debaters have the burden to develop clearly all ideas presented and to do so in an oral style that would be appropriate and courteous in an academic forum.

In all cases, with the exceptions of maverick situations, one debater shall give one rebuttal and one constructive, any violations of this will result in me not evaluating/flowing the arguments of the non-designated speaker and extremely punitive speaker point reductions. I don't understand why this is acceptable now.


Amy Bushey Paradigm

7 rounds

I've taught and coached debate for 22 years, as well as taught at SDI. I've had multiple Michigan state novice champions. As a judge in general, I am tabula rasa.

On the novice level, I am looking for clash, and understanding of the arguments that you are running. I am open to any type of argument, including T, CPs, and Ks, as long as you can articulate what you are reading. Framework is crucial when running Ks. I am open to tag-teaming in CX, as long as you don't dominate your partner. I expect novices to divide the block, and to narrow down their arguments in the rebuttals. If you go for T in the 2NR, it should be the only thing you are going for. I do not read speech documents online, I flow on paper; if an argument is not articulated in the round, I will not intervene by reading it off the computer. If it's not on my flow, it won't be evaluated in the round. I can handle speed, as long as it is delivered with clarity. If not, I will say 'clear' twice, after that, I will stop flowing. The affirmative must extend case each speech if they expect me to vote on it at the end of the round. I am looking for good weighing of the affirmative advantages over the neg disadvantages. I like to hear arguments on timeframe, probability, and magnitude during the rebuttals.

Dylan Chikko Paradigm

7 rounds

general stuff

yes email chain

i'm not really familiar with the arms sales topic at all.

clipping, rudeness, death, racism, sexism, etc are all bad.

"average" points are around 28.7-ish.

you'll get better points if you send analytics.

line by line > implicit clash/overviews

tech > truth

depth > breadth

usually offense/defense with any argument

have fun!!! srsly debate is great but it can also get stressful at times, so do whatever you can to make yourself and everyone else involved enjoy it!! i’m not the biggest fan of small talk or jokes but if that’s what you enjoy then do it!!

please direct any complaints to - i’m sure he’d love to hear them.

policy stuff

i'm fine with anything (except aspec and new affs bad, i won't vote on those even if they're dropped).

will probably judge-kick a counterplan for the neg unless the aff makes arguments about why i shouldn’t before the 2ar.

i default to viewing topicality through competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise.

don't have any predispositions about theory other than that perm theory is really unpersuasive. arguments about in-round abuse are more persuasive than arguments about what you justify. condo's the only reason to reject the team.

k stuff

i am probably like 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating, but that’s just because of my knowledge level, not because i like one style of debate much more than the other. i have voted for k's/k affs before, so you do you. but some things to keep in mind for both sides:

1. fairness might be an impact, but it also might not be. depends on what happens in the debate.

2. the aff should advocate for some kind of shift from the status quo.

3. most k-tricks are not very good but are also usually very poorly answered, so i’ve voted on them a bit.

4. the best approach to framework on both sides is to impact turn the other side's method of debate while having a lot of good defenses of your method of debate. middle of the ground approaches on either side are fine but usually easier for the other side to beat imo.

5. engaging the substance of the aff as much as possible is always a good idea - whether you’re a neg team going for a k against a policy aff, or a neg team against a k aff.

6. i don't really like super exaggerated existential impacts to framework (like not reading a plan will make everyone quit debate or that having to read a plan will turn everyone into evil state-operatives or whatever). just focus on the actual reasons your model of debate is good.

7. please don't go for death good.

Hannah Farnham Paradigm

7 rounds


If you have any questions, contact me at If there is an email chain, please add me.

I debate for GBN and this is my third year of debate. I am a policy debater. I will keep track of prep time. Please give a comprehensive roadmap and signpost.

Tech over truth.

If you debate paperless, please bring a viewing computer for your opponent. This is directed towards those in novice division where the majority of teams debate on paper. Don’t assume that everyone else would bring a computer. Also, if you mark a card please mark it (on paper or online). If the debate comes down to warrants in a card, there needs to be an accurate representation of the evidence in order for me to evaluate the round fairly.

Don't post round me. I will do my best to give a comprehensive reason for my decision, and I will answer your questions, but don't ask questions like "but we were winning on this right" or "what would we need to do to win." These questions are just annoying, especially for your opponents.

Speaker Points

0: you clipped cards

25-27: you were unclear, repetitive, unorganized, offensive, and/ or mean.

27-29: you were a good speaker.

29-30: you were one of the best speakers and debaters I have seen in the given division.


Read a plan. If there is no plan, the neg reading fw is persuasive.

If there is a plan:

Aff- extend your case in each speech

Neg- don’t drop case


I think that this can be a viable strategy against certain aff’s. If you are going to read a t-violation, please don’t read some ridiculous one (arguments like this will not be persuasive to me). Neg, you need to explain to me how they violate and IMPACT the violation. Without a reason that topicality is good, I will not vote for you. Aff, you need to explain how you meet and/ or how your counter-interpretation is better. Answer all of the negative’s impacts and explain your impacts as well.

If a team is not topical, it does cause impacts. Just because it might not be on the extinction level, does not mean that your impacts are any less. You need to make an argument why I as a judge should evaluate your impacts over their impacts, but please do this because it is vital to avoid judge intervention.


Basically, any K isn’t really going to be persuasive to me. This is not to say that I won’t vote for you on the K, just that you must make it very clear what the alt is. Focusing on the ROB debate would be important if you want me to vote for you on the K.


Please have all three aspects of a da: uniqueness, link, and impact. You MUST have an updated uniqueness ev, if the aff is able to postdate and prove that the da is not unique, you will lose. Try and avoid generic links, one that is specific to the aff is going to be far more persuasive. Do not have some crazy long link chain to the impact. If the aff points this out, I will have a very hard time voting for the neg on the da.


Should be textually and functionally competitive. Have a net benefit to the cp. That’s pretty much it.


I’m ok with pretty much everything on this, just have it make sense. This is good if one of the teams is being really abusive.

Kevin Fitzmorris Paradigm

7 rounds

updated 2019 glenbrooks

I'm rusty and new to the arms sales topic - please don't assume I know all the affs and acronyms (cx is a good time to slow down and clarify what the heck you're talking about). I'd suggest to be mindful of this when screaming your caselist on T at me. When you make those comparisons, especially if the other team presents their own caselist too, tidbits of context can really help me see what's what.

Who I am

Isidore Newman '17

Northwestern '21

add me to the email chain:


  • One of my favorite debates if it's done well and both sides are organized.
  • Clash and fairness are impacts - still have to tell me why though and flesh them out properly
  • On reasonability, this is less of a preference and more objectively the only way this argument makes any sense, but at least when you're extending it contextualize it to the counter-interp.


  • Good counterplans will have a solvency advocate and be specific. I'd like to say just run whatever and let the theory play out and just win it, but historically I've been more neg on conditionality and pics good. I like to think it's because they're just better arguments, but there's probably some sort of inherent bias going on there, too.


  • Good args. Zero risk is real, but debatable. Tell me why there *must* be a risk and why that's important


  • If you're the 2N that loves the one-off K I'm not the best for you. Not because I hate Ks, but because I have very little experience running them in that manner and therefore a lot of the nuance can be lost on me in very close debates (which isn't likely to go well for you). I think alts should at least consider doing something and be defended and that links should be specific and include at least good story about the aff. (Strategic and in depth K debating is good?)
  • I definitely prefer topical, plan-based affs. T vs. K affs is pretty good in front of me, but nothing is worse than when it's executed poorly. K affs that at least have a strong grounding in the topic have a much better time convincing me than the run Nietzsche as an aff for x year because why not aff.


  • Run it, if it's well-extended then I can be persuaded.
  • Only "reject the team" I can think of is Conditionality, but if you have a good argument for something else then I'll listen. (Conditionality is probably good though).
  • *Conditionality doesn't necessarily mean judge kick - if you want me to kick something for you, make it very clear and tell me why that should be a thing a judge does. I hate recreating debates in ways they didn't actually play out - you have to tell me what the world in which I kick it for you looks like.*

Closing Remarks (ballot forming/speed/flowing)

I'll pretty much listen to whatever you have to say barring language or arguments that are entirely inappropriate (like racism good or bigoted language). I will be frustrated if you don't compare your arguments and make me wade through the debate. I will default to looking for the route of least resistance; that is, the ballot that means I intervene the least. This is usually best achieved by telling me how to look at the round and why, why you win within that framework, why you win even if you don't win within that framework, why you win within your opponents' framework, etc. Many teams take this as a chance to be super repetitive. On the contrary, the more concise you are on each of these points, the better. This conciseness can be achieved with smart evidence and warrant comparison, considering the implication of arguments across flows and leveraging those implications in your favor, and word economy among other important fundamental tools to this event.

Speed is arguments flowed per time unit, not words per minute.

Please flow. I pay attention to what you're doing, and usually it's pretty clear who does and does not know what's happening. Speaks are awarded accordingly.

Arnav Gupta Paradigm

7 rounds

Online Update: I am flowing on computer for these debates so I can maximize the amount of content I am able to process. Please try and go slower (75% of normal speed?) on tags and analytics especially.

Put me on the email chain:

A little about myself: I debated at College Prep for 4 years (qualified to the TOC in policy). I'm currently a rising junior at the University of Chicago not debating in college, studying economics and public policy. I'm an assistant coach at College Prep, and also working with the wonderful people at Lane Tech this year.

I went for primarily: Politics, Topic DAs, cheaty CPs, T, Impact Turns with Advantage CPs (bonus points if you execute this cleanly in front of me), and the occasional K. I was a policy-leaning debater, but very flex. Do whatever you do best and I'll listen.

I flow on paper, and I don't look at the speech doc you send until after your speech, so please slow down on tags/analytics!


John Hines taught me two fundamental beliefs about what great debate looks like; these are the two things you should take away from this paradigm:

1) Line-by-line debating is not optional. I will be :( if you don't do/attempt line-by-line debating. Please try your best!

2) I like when debaters write my ballot for me, present nexus questions/framing issues, and do detailed impact calculus.


I vote on dropped arguments I don't believe in, speed is fine, use cross-x in your speeches, yes your opponent's cards are "terrible" but why are they terrible, evidence quality matters but I'm not going to read cards and interpret them myself, nobody likes rude people

Case: By far the most underutilized part of negative strategy. I am a sucker for teams that have specific prepped-out strategies to affirmatives, and use the case page strategically. Please please please impact turn. For aff teams, I personally don't think the 2ac needs overviews on their advantages.

DA: Good. The politics DA is a very strategic tool, and I love good topic DAs. Don't turn the 1NR into the 5 mins of cards, and instead explain your good evidence with nuance.

CP: Great. I appreciate good advantage CPs and process CPs that exploit weaknesses in affirmative internal link chains. Having a solvency advocate is very important. 2NC CPs are underrated. I lean extremely negative on CP theory except in egregious situations.

T: T debates are great if done right. They often tend to get messy and require a whole lot of judge intervention. Taking a little bit from Ruby Klein: "Good, specific evidence with an intent to define considerably improves the credibility of your interpretation/violation, caselists on both sides are great, and reasonability is most persuasive to me when articulated as an 'aff predictability' argument." Fairness and education aren't really impacts, I need to know more.

K: I am not very well-versed in high theory. My in-depth knowledge of K's is limited to security, neolib/cap, set col, and afropessimism. I need explanations that extend pass buzzwords, and I want you to contextualize the debate in terms of a specific link, a fleshed-out alternative, and a reason why it resolve the aff impacts; a good specific link debate will make your argument much more persuasive. I've voted for the K on framework debates way too much - 1ARs blow off framework and then I end up not being able to weigh the affirmative. Don't do that. If the 1AR has to pull out a new sheet of paper called "K overview" after the neg block, the 2N needs to do some serious re-evaluation of the way they're doing line-by-line debating on the K.

Theory: These debates are definitely winnable, but they're often late-breaking and shallow. I agree with Ian Beier that teams are really bad at answering theory, so even if I believe that the neg should be able to do what they want, affs should consider theory if there's some level of neg abuse.

K Affs/FW: I lean neg on framework, but I understand the value of no-plan affs in debate. If you're reading a K aff you should: have a tangible link to the resolution, make sure you have a good answer against TVA's because that's a very convincing argument for me, and "a reason why you've chosen the debate space as the sight for your epistemological project" (Maya Mundada). I'm most convinced by impact turns, a good counter-interpretation, framework, and good defenses of your method. Don't go for 'we meet.'

If you are a team that writes case negs to specific affirmatives at the tournament, and has nuanced aff-specific off-case and case arguments ... <3

Any other questions you have I'd be more than happy to answer before the round, or email/FB message me! Good luck y’all!

Brianna Hassell Paradigm

7 rounds

I've debated four years at Derby High School.

If you have any questions:

Overall: Speed is fine. Please put me on the email chain. Please be clear. I lean policy but critical arguments are great too. What ever you do just make sure you give good explanation and impact calc. The debate will go a lot faster if early on you make it clear on what I should be voting on. Don't just read mass amounts of evidence and make sure your line by line is clear. CX is basically a speech so treat it as such, it's 3 min where you could poking holes in your opponents case or making key arguments, I highly value CX.

Case: Case debate is very important and clearly undervalued. Case turns are great. Make sure you have ink on all pieces of the case, don't just grant them an advantage at least give your self some options going into the block or else you're just talking in circles.

DA: Specific links are always better than generics. I am familiar with most of the DA on this years topic. I will play the date game when it comes to your uniqueness evidence especially when it comes to politics. Obviously how I evaluate the impact depends on who does the impact calc and prove to me that the link will trigger the impact before the aff can solve for their advantages.

CP: Counter plans that focus on the agency of the affirmative and or the immediacy of the affirmative are probably cheating, but that is your job to call out. Don't just spout off a bunch of perms without explanation. Perm theory is fine but it is more of reason to reject the perm rather than a reason to reject the team.

Topicality: Personally I haven't seen a lot of good T debates on this topic but I definitely believe there is room for a good T debate especially if there is proof of in round abuse through the aff no linking out of the DA base on substantiality. I think the T eliminate argument is pretty hard to win but if you can explain it well and prove loss of ground then go for it. Obviously make sure you impact out T and explain your voters, please do not just say "this is a voter for fairness and education" and then move on. I will vote for T but if you are going to go for T then just go for T not the buffet.

K: I am fine with critical affirmatives or Kritiks. Please explain your links and impacts, don't assume I know the literature because I most likely don't. I have gone for the K before. K's I have either ran or read about: Set Col, Nietzsche, University, Anthro, Cap and Derrida, but please explain what your alt does or why it doesn't have to do anything. I think Frame Work is definitely a good answer to the K because in the end a K v K debate gets very messy.

Samantha Jacobs Paradigm

7 rounds

flow and be nice

Prajnaa Jain Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Mahnoor Jamal Paradigm

7 rounds

Previous experience: Policy debater for Maine East High School for two years.

Current speech, IPDA, and BP/Worlds debater at Oakton Community College.

Heavily policy oriented— if you’re going to do any type of K work please speak to me as if I don’t know what’s going on. Avoid buzzwords and jargon unless you will give proper explanation and the framework/role of the ballot should be clearly defined giving me valid explanations as to why I should prefer your interpretation. Please have developed SPECIFIC links to the plan if you’re running a K on the Neg and your overviews for Ks (be it an affirmative or negative position) should be talked through not spread through. Make me understand—don’t just throw words at me. TLDR; if it’s a K talk to me like I’m lay.

Counterplans and Disads are my cup of tea. I will vote neg on theory if it’s against a shifty process or conditions counter plan (I absolutely despise conditions CP). Also don’t go for condo unless there are specific instances of abuse and you plan on speaking a whole 5min is your 2AR about it I don’t wanna hear that speech, you don’t wanna give that speech, and your opponent probably will think your not cool by the end of it.

I value clarity over speed—if you have clear arguments with in depth explanation I’ll lean towards you (at least in terms of speaker points) rather than having an abundance of unclear arguments.

Please be flowing, try line by line the best you can, avoid card clipping, and just be a decent human being in terms of interactions with one another. Okay EMPHASIS ON SIDE POSTING AND LINE BY LINE!!! I become absolutely flustered and frustrated when side posting isn’t done. If you’re not telling me to switch flows there’s a higher chance due to my misflowing the argument will be awash.

if you’re actually reading this: show me a meme, a cute puppy picture, or something weeb related by the end of the round or before it I’ll give you an extra 0.1 speaker point 😚✌🏽

Dasha Kosack Paradigm

7 rounds

Not Submitted

Kevin Le Paradigm

7 rounds

Kevin Le -- Condo Kevin -- Maine East Class of 2018 -- Debated 4 years in High School -- 2A / 1N

OTHER STUFF: --> ALWAYS include me on the email chain

Note: I have not debated nor researched the current high-school topic, keep this in mind when you're explaining and contextualizing your arguments.

-- I HATE it when teams don't flash analytics because debate shouldn't be about outspreading the opponent and hoping that they drop something, you should be able to out-debate them even when they have all your arguments and it also helps me out to flow when you're going 100000000 mph during your speech.

-- Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

-- I do not count flashing time (or general tech screw ups) as prep time and quite frankly I am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

-- Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). You should speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you. If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, as with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it. I'm alright at flowing but may miss tricks / theory if you don't make them especially clear. If I can't understand your argument -- either due to your lack of clarity or your argument's lack of coherence, I will not vote for it. The latter is often the downfall of most negative critiques. I'm a 6/10 for speed and maybe even a 7 if I'm fully awake.

-- I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my semi-conscious (and probably apathetic) state, perceive is going on. -- I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking on my laptop, throwing something at you, etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument.

-- I will not hesitate to vote against teams and award zero points for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, threats of violence, racist or sexist slurs etc.

-- You can't clip cards. This is non-negotiable. If I catch it, I'll happily ring you up and spend the next hour of my life shopping for clothes. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of Proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction.

DISADVANTAGES AND ADVANTAGES: Intellectual story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY: I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the AFF. to dig out of. For example, if the AFF. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote AFF. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3-word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS: Case specific CP's are preferable that integrate well (i.e. do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CP's to solve the AFF and use AFF solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the AFF on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The AFF has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS: Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than below mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further, I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing both a dose of the real world. In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique DA in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the AFF. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyper speed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE-BASED ARGUMENTS AND KRITIK AFFIRMATIVES: No topical plan that starts with "The United States federal government should..."? No win. This is non-negotiable. If your AFF does not contain a topical plan and the negative raises even a minimal 'framework'-style objection, I will vote negative. Especially on a topic where the AFF can critique some vestige of US armed sales policy and then read a plan to ban that thing, it is a LOW requirement that the affirmative finds a topical way to make its desired argument.

Teja Leburu Paradigm

7 rounds

Teja Leburu, Coach at Northwestern University, Toss Me on the Chain:

I removed most of the thoughts before, mostly because who wants to read a four-page paradigm. The short version is: I think Aff's need to defend a topical course of action. Based on previous rounds I've judged, it seems I'm not great for condo bad or "cheating" CPs. Have fun and don't take yourself too seriously.

Additional Notes:

---Rehighlighting is Fine

---Boo Bad Theory Args to "Reject the Team" e.g "Severance Perms" or "States CP"

---I'll Read The Cards

---I'll Hold Your Politics Ev to Same Standard As Any Other DA

---If you read a New Aff on Paper, you are a coward

---Introduction of a CP without explanation/card of how it solves in the 1NC justifies new 1AR answers

---NDT/TOC Note: the Aff/Neg must send out evidence in complete form with tags/highlighting read in word document (at some point, at latest after the speech), if accessible, to all participants in the debate, otherwise will receive a 27. I will also intervene to notify either side of this policy if possible during the debate.

Daniel Levin Paradigm

7 rounds

GBN '19

Tulane '23

Add me:

Top Level

I'm not that familiar with the arms sales topic. That being said, if there is anything that I should know (acronyms, programs, important concepts, etc.), use your speeches to explain it.

I'm fine with pretty much any argument, so long as it is explained coherently and has a claim, evidence, and warrant behind it. Be nice, be prepared, and have fun- doing these will go a long way.


Not sure how big it is on this topic, but I am a big fan of T debates. I think legal precision is probably the best way to win T debates (regardless if you're aff or neg)- I'm persuaded by the argument that legal precision controls the internal link to whatever other impacts there are (fairness, education, etc.). Also, intent to define is key. Don't hesitate to call out your opponent's evidence if it is taken out of context.


Great argument. Agent, conditions, process, etc. are all fine with me as long as it's tied to the rest of the debate. That means that at some point a card needs to be read by the neg that ties the CP to the aff, or at the very least the resolution. Solvency deficits can be devastating if they're explained well, and certainly should be part of your aff strategy. Likewise, having quality evidence on the neg that establishes solvency makes your CP much more viable. Advantage CP's are underused and can be super effective when coupled with a DA. In terms of theory, I am probably neg leaning, but can be convinced otherwise. The only argument I may be aff leaning on, depending on the situation, is condo. Aff, if you're going to go for it, don't make it a generic, theoretical debate over the merits of conditionality. The best way to execute condo is to make it as specific to the round as possible, and provide concrete examples of how the neg's use of condo was abusive.


Any and all disads are fine. I frequently went for DA and case as a 2n and I think it's a strategy that's not used enough. Obviously impact calc is super important, not just fleshing out your own impact but also comparing it to theirs. I can be persuaded to vote aff on defense alone, especially if the case debate is executed well, but you'll probably be more successful if you go for a link or impact turn.


The K can be an extremely effective strategy, and I will definitely listen. While I am familiar with most K literature, the more high theory it gets, the larger the burden is on the neg to explain it. At the end of the day, if I can't comprehend your argument, I'm not going to vote for it. My favorite K to read was set col, but I'm fine with anything. For both sides, be respectful to your opponents and do not personally attack them. Also, be direct about what your argument is and don't be shifty. I'm not going to vote on K results in the aff post-alt or fiat double bind, so your path to victory is much more clear if you focus on the actual substance of the kritik. For most kritiks, I think the neg has a pretty high threshold to establish a link, so make sure you read evidence that puts your K in the context of the aff, and have specific examples of what the aff does that links to your argument. If you're aff, use your c-x and speech time to point out the lack of a link and also attack the alt. A lot of alts are simply buzzwords that can't be explained, or, if they are comprehensible, have clear, significant DA's to them. If you're neg, take the time in your speeches to explain what the alt does, how it solves your impacts, and why it's preferable. I'm ok with K affs, but I think it's definitely an uphill battle for the aff if the neg has a solid framework argument. If you plan on reading a K aff, tie it to the topic, have a good defense of why it should be a part of the debate, and explain why the impacts of your aff matter, both in terms of the "real-world" impacts as well as the impacts that your aff has on debate as an activity.

Elena Liao Paradigm

7 rounds

I was a debater at UCLab. I ran k arguments on the aff and neg.

Debates are not decided by my biases or what arguments I am used to but the actual debaters in the round. I'm ready to be dazzled by whatever it is you have prepared, but more importantly I want to be told explicitly why to vote for you. To make this matter clear to all, I think that data/evidence about theory and praxis is better than just one or the other. Give me easy ways to understand why TeamA beats TeamB, as well as give me solid warrants to your arguments so I can defend my decision in the RFD.

Argument types:

DAs, Topicality, Ks, CPs and the whole lot are fine by me. Willing to vote on a DA turns case, willing to vote aff on a 0% risk of a DA, but just be clear: LOL @ RVIs. LOL @ 13-off (you deserve a special breed of theory violation) and LOL @ things I don't understand by the final rebuttal.

Theory in general - what was abusive??? Varies round to round. Yes, a dropped argument is really influential to my ballot. I like when there is a clean sweep for either team... and I will vote on theory with clear links and impact analysis.

Cross-ex is speech time without speech constraints. I try and flow this because arguments tend to become more apparent to all during this part of the round.

Fair warning: speaker points will be a reflection of how you competed in the round. Poetic diction is praised and points will be raised. Passion is justifiable, but prejudice is not.

Max Lubell Paradigm

7 rounds

Debate Experience:

2011-2014: Debated at Notre Dame High School

2014-2015: Debate at the University of Michigan

2015-2018: Executive Director of Detroit Urban Debate Education (which included judging and coaching for Detroit Urban Debate League schools)

I currently work in an urban social science research organization at the University of Chicago, researching crime and education. While I have probably judged over a hundred debate rounds, I am not currently active in the debate community. Do not assume I am caught up on topic-specific arguments. Please be clear.

For questions:


I try as much as possible to evaluate based on the arguments in the round. While I obviously hold implicit biases for or against certain arguments, I try as hard as possible to not let that impact my decisions. I have experience debating, coaching, and judging critical- and policy-oriented rounds. I wouldn't call myself swayed toward one side or the other.

That being said a couple of notes:

- Bad arguments are bad. If your argument is illogical — for example, reading a disadvantage without a link in the 1NC or your evidence not making the warrants needed to uphold your argument — then I will likely not vote for it.

- I'll try to evaluate the arguments as you make them. While there is a greater chance I will vote against a bad argument, that does not mean the opposing team can just ignore it.

- I am willing to vote against my own beliefs. If I personally believe that an aff is untopical, I will still evaluate it regardless of my personal convictions. The burden to persuade me is on both teams, and I try to ensure my judging is informed by the arguments made in the round, not my personal biases towards or against certain arguments.

- I don't tolerate obvious hateful/rude arguments or behavior. Everyone deserves to feel safe in this activity.

For novice debaters, the following acts will result in an increase of speaker points: flowing every speech, communicating with your partner, not talking over your partner, not talking into your computer, using up all of your time in cross-ex asking questions, giving the evidence you read to the other team efficiently, and keeping track of your own time (I will keep track too, but its a good behavior to start).

Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round.

Gargi Mansingh Paradigm

7 rounds

Wayzata '19

American '23


general info

- no arms sale knowledge

- tech>truth

- no t preferences

k affs

- you don't need a tva as long as you can explain why there isn't one

- the aff needs a reason why 1) debate is key and 2) why reading it on the neg doesn't solve

- fairness is an impact but i'm also super open to clash/topic education

things i like

- well-researched advantage counterplans, DA/case debates, thorough case arguments and impact calc, aff-specific PICs, and good evidence

- reading a plan

- k's on the neg

things i don't like

- process cp's

- long overviews and framing pages

- Loic Rocheleau

other thoughts

- i don't mind theory debates but i also think it's a lazy way of debating

- i miss debate so i encourage you to ~have fun~

- ask me if you have question

- small schools/ schools without administrative support have my heart. If you're from the dmv area please email me if you need help

Rachel Mauchline Paradigm

7 rounds

Rachel Mauchline

Director of Debate Cabot

Conflicts- Bentonville West


Put me on the email chain @

speed is good

tech over truth

flex prep

open cross

I judge a mix of debate styles throughout the season.


I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't paraphrase evidence and completely skew the evidence.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I don't have a huge preference and am willing to judge whatever. In regards to progressive debates, I prefer more policy-oriented debates but am willing to judge kritikal arguments as long as the link story is explained well and the alternative is clear. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.


I enjoy a well articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.


This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.


I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.


I’m not as familiar with this form of argumentation or literature, but I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just reading a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. Similar to disads, the neg block/nr should expand on the link level of the debate and then condense down to the link they are winning in the 2NR for policy. I am seeing more and more teams, taking the strategy of kicking the alt and cross-applying the links as disads on the case flow. It's important to be aware though that for some kritiks that simply kicking the alt eliminates the uniqueness level of the link debate since they are simply implications from the status quo. That’s a cool strategy, which is also why affirmative teams need to be sure to not just focus on the alternative vs. the aff but also respond to all parts of the K. I think most aff teams that read a plan should have clear framework against the K in order to weigh this aff against the alt. Like I’ve said I judge more K rounds than I expected, but if you are reading a specific authors that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work in the o/v.


I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Jackson Miller Paradigm

3 rounds

[Names of schools, years of graduation]

I debated for [number] years and made it to [a hotel ballroom nobody cares about].

Have fun always, try your best always. Like really I put it at the top for a reason. Don't insult your opponents. Don't be mean to your partner. The more you think you're better than them the more I'm gonna want you to be wrong.

Put me on the email chain please:

You know, last year I had this joke where I told people to listen to the main theme of the video game Arms while listening to my paradigm (*arms* sales), but I haven't really thought of an equivalent for this year's topic yet.


I know jack-squat about [topic], both in terms of the actual issue as well as how people have been debating it this year. So, I can’t wait for you to teach me! What I can assure you of though is that I’ll never go on facebook or anything during either speeches or cross-ex, and frankly that’s more than some judges can say.

Short version: Tech over truth. Long version: Remember that I am mortal. I would say evaluate my argument preferences under the assumption that those arguments have not been dropped/critically under-covered.

[Statements that amount to "Make good arguments"]

Getting the sense defense has become severely underrated.


Don't read suicide good. Don't read extinction good. Don't read warming good. Don't read racism good. Don't read sexism good. Don't have sex at camp. etc.

Boo to the Schlaang super seat and AntoniNO. I'm gonna suggest you don't read Baudrillard (I hope I spelled that incorrectly), both in front of me and in front of all your other judges.

Don't say "no neg fiat." If you read troll arguments like consult asgard or like time triangular pyramid I'll dock the 2N's speaks.

S e n d a n a l y t i c s, not n u d e s. I mean both parts of that sentence, though I recognize one of the parts is typically relevant only during debate rounds.

The only thing I absolutely 100% won't vote for are teams that lose the round.

K Affs

I'm not calling them "planless affs" or "performance affs" or wutevr so that might already give you some indication.

The point of debate is to gain critical thinking skills by repeatedly practicing the comparative analysis of theoretical worlds (counting the squo as one) via concepts such as uniqueness, links and impacts.

You can win without reading a plan, but you're going to have a rough time unless you have some reason why reading your aff and receiving a ballot improves the status quo. There are many ways to accomplish this and I really want you do at least one of them.

I'd say I find many of the framework arguments both neg and aff teams make to be pretty unconvincing and unoriginal. Neg teams, I'd love for you to think about why k affs would be hard to debate against even if they were predictable. Aff teams, I'd love to hear about why an inability to engage institutions irl means it's bad to debate [topic]. I could write a million of those requests.

This is gonna sound silly, but I honestly don't find fairness or predictability to be that convincing, at least not in the way I often saw them deployed. Like personally, never once have I heard of a high school debater or coach putting in the time to cut a case neg to an aff unless they already knew for a fact that that aff was being read by a team they were afraid of. Yet at the same time, I do not at all think "predictability" is pointless to talk about. For fairness, I guess I'll just say "fairness is an internal link". I encourage you to really think about what people can get out of debate.

Run framework. Otherwise, I will be sad and not like the round very much so like just please do. If you think running framework is unethical or wutevr please strike me. I had to have at least one of those in here.

Get creative with your 1NCs. Think about what new opportunities these unconventional affs might afford you, both in terms of positions and args within flows. If a center-left layperson wouldn't think it's "unethical" to read, I probably won't either.

I feel like a lot of times when aff teams say "debate isn't a game," they still treat it like it is one.

Neg Kritiks

I'll definitely vote for some Ks, but if your link is only "you use the state" or "you use the [topic]” you're gonna have a tough time getting me to vote for the K.

I didn't even actually debate the [topic] topic I'm sorry I was just trying to look edgy.

Number one tip I would say - both to the aff and the neg - is just impact out your args. Never assume I know why you auto-win if you "win the ontology debate." Similarly, you need to explain, impact and probably persuade me of things like "fiat isn't real" and "social death." It is likely that your "tricks" are - in my eyes - actually just bad arguments. Don't get me wrong, a dropped arg is a dropped arg, but a prerequisite to something being a dropped arg is it being an arg.

I default to assuming that the K has to have an alt that solves impacts and is mutually exclusive with the aff. If the impacts the k solves aren't as important as the one the aff solves, I'll vote aff.

"Extinction already happens, happened, or will have had happened for x ppl bc social death" is a hard sell for me, especially if you're trying to argue that it means extinction isn't an impact.

Go to case. Like with *defense*.


Have as many planks as you want. You can read new planks. You can probably amend existing planks, too.

Having a good solvency advocate (so like one from a source actually written in the context of [topic]) usually makes me think a counter-plan is more theoretically legit.

Love an intelligent counter-plan.

Theory and T

Honestly, refer to K aff section.

Probably won't win on T unless the aff really isn't T and there's some concrete, specific abuse. The abuse is less of an internal link to a fairness based-RoB and more just really strong evidence for why their model of debate is bad.

I'm much more likely to vote on theory and T when I'm convinced there was in-round abuse. I lean neg on condo but definitely do not think infinite condo is okay.

Everything Else

[Irrelevant opinions]

[Opinions immediately made irrelevant by a barrage of qualifiers]


[Encouraging you to make jokes even though in reality that always plays out really awkwardly in round]

If you make any references to the Persona franchise, I like cannot give you points because this is varsity but just like please still do. I don't know just say like, "perception shapes reality" instead of "discourse shapes reality," or throw my name into the jingle bells or something idk.

And look I mean on this topic you really shouldn't have too hard of a time making a Persona 5 reference. Just look at the topic: criminal, justice, and reform - all words I associate with Persona 5 albeit not when taken together.

Also sorry for being overly sarcastic and snarky in this judge paradigm. If I’m honest with myself, this might not reflect the true me.

Kya Nethercot Paradigm

7 rounds ;

Speaking/Evidence- Talk at a rate that you are comfortable with. Signal me when you are moving from one piece of evidence to another with either a. a clear emphasized "and" or "next" or b. an increase of volume that indicates you are on a piece of evidence. Please do not mumble through the evidence. If you do, I will say "clear." If I can't hear your warrants, the evidence is less persuasive to me. (It will be weighed, but not as heavily as those that are articulated clearly)

Power-tagging (tag that hypes-up a claim without a strong warrant actually backing it up) and over-tagging (giving me a paragraph to flow before your evidence that doesn't provide me with necessary information) is annoying. I'll be listening to the content of the evidence over what you tag it, but I prefer neat labels before the explanation. For example, "No US-China war-- economic interdependence and mutually assured destruction check."

When you extend your evidence, you can reference the author names, but I really prefer if you reference the tag or warrants because I might miss the author. Rebuttals are about persuasion, this isn't a bibliography. (Thanks Daniel Saunders)

Debate is about what YOU articulate to ME. If I wanted to read and compare the warrants of your evidence, I would do it in my own prep. Judge intervention will only be used in rounds where the warrant debate was fire or when the other team calls you out for misrepresenting what the card actually says. Also, if the warrant wasn't represented in the rebuttal, I don't care how good the warrant is.

Extension without a warrant is a shadow extension and I either a. won't weigh it or b. will weigh it as close to nothing. I expect a warrant.

Prep time - Flashing is off-time unless the tournament makes me do otherwise. Don't steal prep. If you do, I'll asking you if you're prepping at first. When I catch you violently typing outside of prep, I will mark down your speaks and update you with a new time after you're done. You may ask questions during prep, but the other team isn't obligated to answer. (questions should only be for CLARIFICATION)

Disadvantages and counterplans - Condo is a voter if the aff wins it. If the neg wins it, I may judge kick the arg. The status quo is always a viable option. I like theory a lot. If you win theory on the aff, you win the counterplan. Intrinsic DAs can be beat on good theory, but it must be persuasive.

Framework vs Critical affs - I prefer topical plans, but I will vote on WELL PRESENTED AND EXPLAINED ones.

I am less persuaded by procedural fairness than education. So what if framework makes the game work? The real question in this debate is "is the game good"? Tell me why policy creates something that is good and why that offense outweighs the impacts of the K. For example, "policy making allows us to access skills, education, subjectives, or whatever... "

TVAs make me more inclined to a procedural fairness debate. Otherwise, I like education offense.

The burden of proof on the TVA is with the neg-- tell me why you're tva solves some of their offense. Explain what parts of the 1ac and 2ac are resolved by the tva in the block. TVA isn't a round winner-- it will be evaluated like a counter plan so you still need offense. SHOW ME WHY THE OFFENSE OUTWEIGHS!!!

Theory/T - THEORY IS VERY IMPORTANT. I think neg teams get away with too much as far as PICs, CPs, ect go. I will (minimum) kick your arg if the aff explains well why I should and you don't defend it well. Tell me why your interpretation is better on T. In this debate, interpreting limits is the most important thing. Tell me what they limit out and why that's bad and/or let me know what you include, why that's good, and why that good outweighs. Be thorough on theory. 'Condo is cheating because time skew' will never be enough for me to vote or probably even kick.

Kritiks – Framework matters and both the aff and the neg need to make theirs clear in the round. A fantastic k debater can still lose on framework. I need the alt to be articulated well. If it isn't,then it can be evaluated as a linear disad (in the case that you articulate that to me clearly).

Experience - I'm a junior with camp experience. My K familiarity is basic, but I do understand Marxism, some Lacan, set col, identity Ks, and reps ks

Perm - Aff needs to explain why perms solve the links. The aff just saying "perm do both" and repeating it is basically as the same as a claim without a warrant; instead say "the perm solves link this link [blah blah blah], the perm solves link this link,"…” etc. Neg needs to explain why the links are resilient to the perms because perm disads are less than persuasive.

Ayesha Patel Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated for 3 years in high school and have judged a few tournaments since then. So, I am not well read on the topics.

- Don't use acronyms, if you do, explain them first

- I'll vote on any argument, as long as it is articulated well

- Explain your arguments throughout the debate, from the beginning


- Speak/spread clearly

Mary Anne Quinn Paradigm

6 rounds

I'm fairly old school. I will vote on stock issues - Topicality, Solvency....

I'm generally open to any issue - if you give me a reason to vote on it. Tell me why it's of voting consequence, and why you won that issue. 2NR and 2AR should not just cover each individual issue, weigh the issues (e.g. risk of Adv vs. Disad) in context of the whole debate, account for the other team's arguments.

I'm ok with spreading it if you don't outpace your own articulation and breathing. I am not a fan of super-spreading. You are better off slowing down a bit for me, making fewer arguments, clearer.

Alex Reznik Paradigm

4 rounds

Glenbrook North ‘19

University of Pittsburgh ‘23


I assume debate is a game and tech determines truth. If you don't know your argument well, don't read it. If you can't explain the link to your disad, or the alt to your k, I'll err aff. Don’t use fancy sounding language as an excuse for an argument. Ev qualifications matter... but burdens on you to explain why it implicates your arguments

policy; 2019-2020 arms sales topic- don’t use topic abbreviations- I’ve done limited end-of-the-year work regarding this topic

online debate; go 20% slower than usual


I assume affs should topically affirm the resolution. Feel free to challenge that. I assume planless affs destroy negative engagement and argumentative refinement due to lack of stasis. However, examples of engagement of your planless affirmative will make it much easier to win my ballot. Moreover, I prefer your k-aff either impact turns framework or tries to be topical- don’t try to do both. If you read a k-aff as a novice, it will be very difficult to win my ballot.

on the neg...

your alternative should do something... or not; but your links should be able to resolve themselves; either through framework args or the alt; honestly many fw args are the same as the alt- so take that as you will

—your links should be intrinsic to the aff

— I am not convinced by "framework: no perms"


—won’t judge kick unless you tell me to

—condo is debatable; go slow on theory

—make framing args about net benefits; are they yes / no or linear; that’s up to you to resolve

—what is an abusive counterplan? That’s determined by competition and theoretical legitimacy; that’s governed by either plan-specific arguments about why the counterplan is distinct from the aff and by topic- specific evidence
—impact turn the nb if you can’t beat the counterplan; it’s a much better strategy than forcing a judge to evaluate a theory debate


—I’m convinced t-subs isn’t an argument; but feel free to try to convince me

—I don’t like t debates with bad evidence; limits for the sake of limits are useless if they aren’t predictable; I don’t care about your arbitrary definition that creates a limited topic if it isn’t intrinsically predictable off of the resolutions wording


—turns case matters but make framing args about why turns case can make solvency deficits on counterplans or case defense matter / not matter

—read lots of ev; but the ev should make distinct claims- especially true for hyper-genetics like politics

—theoretical args about disads and opportunity cost are fun

impact turns;

—they’re great; unless... you don’t make turns case or framing issues about what offense supersedes the other; very few judges want to sort through 50 dedev cards

any questions? is there a neg resolution? lmk

put me on the email chain ---


past / current affiliations;

University of Pittsburgh

Glenbrook North hs

Archbishop Mitty hs

Canyon Crest hs

Grace Rogers Paradigm

7 rounds

Updated 11/18/2019.


Policy Debate at Shawnee Mission West from 2009-2013 (social services, military presence, space, transportation)

Assistant Policy Coach/Judge for Des Moines Roosevelt 2014-2017

Judge for Dowling Catholic 2018-present

Marketing/Communications at the NSDA 2018-present

I judge policy debate 99.9% of the time. On the occasion that I'm in LD or PF, be fairly warned that I don't know your abbreviations or jargon, and I don't know your topic as well. Please explain your acronyms and any tech style arguments you're making. I want clear and specific impacts, and good analysis of your impacts vs. your opponent's.

To sum up my paradigm, I value good argumentation and clash. I default as a policymaker, so if you want me to vote on something different, you have to tell me. I can follow pretty much any speed with good signposting and clear tags, but you need to slow down on theory/T/analysis that is tougher to flow. I will answer any questions before the round, and I think you should ask me about things to make this a good experience for us both!

Disadvantages: I think DAs are great. I think they're some of the most real-world argumentation that happens in policy debate. I value great clash and specific link debate.

Counterplans: Go for it.

Kritiks: I have never been a K debater, and I consider my debate IQ on the K to be very low. If you decide to run a K anyway, and want to get my ballot, you need to drop the jargon and explain your argument extremely clearly. To be crystal clear: running a K in front of me is going to be tough. I have a high bar for clarity and understanding, and if I don't understand what is happening, it's going to be hard for me to vote for you.

If you've read all that and still want to run a K and win the round, you need to do a few things:

1. Explain clearly why passing the affirmative plan is bad.

2. Explain what action signing the ballot takes -- focus on solutions. What does the alternative do? What does it solve?

3. Drop the jargon/high theory args and talk to me like I've never heard of debate.

I have been on panels where teams decide to throw out my ballot because they love the K. I believe this is a poor strategic decision.

Topicality: Unless you give me a good reason otherwise, I won't evaluate potential abuse, so don't run T unless the aff is actually untopical.

Theory: If you're going to read theory args, go slow. I flow on paper and it's super hard to flow if you just rattle them off. I will likely just stop flowing. Like I said in the T description, I most likely won't evaluate potential abuse, so don't run theory unless it's actually unfair.

I will not tolerate any forms of harassment in rounds that I am watching. If something you do constitutes harassment in my eyes, I will give you the lowest speaks possible and end the round.

My email is You can put me on the email chain if you want, but I won't be following along with your speech doc -- I'll only look at evidence if I need to call for it after the round.

Emily Silber Paradigm

7 rounds

Niles West 2017

Emory 2021

please put me on your email chain

The Reason You're Probably Reading This

The thing you probably care most about is what I think about k affs vs t/framework so I'll start with that. I am a policy debater that consistently goes for t against k affs and therefore default to thinking the aff should read a topical plan. I think that there's a lot of validity to a couple framing arguments that the aff needs to deal with. These most notably include the idea that debate is a game, it's meaningful to try to achieve some level of procedural fairness, and that the aff should be tied to the topic. I'm less persuaded by skills and education arguments and think that framing usually favors the aff. For the neg-- using the arguments I listed will help you, but not guarantee that you win. Make sure you're actually explaining them and not just repeating buzzwords.


I know next to nothing about the topic and therefore have no strong opinions on T. I'm inclined to err aff on T when the violation seems contrived and the aff can convince me they're reasonable and err neg when the aff is tiny and ridiculous even when the neg might not have the perfect violation to encapsulate why the aff shouldn't be T. I lean tentatively aff on most theory and think the neg needs to do a better job actually answering the arguments than more teams do. The exception is no neg fiat. That's dumb and honestly that's all you need to say.

Kritiks on the Neg

I've gone for a few but definitely not my go-to. Things I've read that I'm familiar with: (from most to least) Fem IR, Security/Imperialism, Agamben, Neolib, and Fem Rage. Obviously I've debated against other arguments and have some basic understanding but you'll need to spend more time explaining. I think the aff should be able to weigh the case and the neg should have to prove the plan is worse than the status quo but can be convinced otherwise. Make sure the alt does something to solve the links/potentially the aff or don't make it an integral part of your 2nr strategy. I hate the fiat double bind.


IMO, the best strategies. Politics and midterms are dumb and can be easily beaten with simple logical arguments, but most aff teams don't take advantage of that. I default to the offense/defense paradigm. Process counterplans are probably bad and 50 state fiat is questionably ok. Advantage counterplans are amazing.

Case Debate

It's underrated. Do more than impact defense and please don't read the same cards from forever ago. Don't be afraid to have smart analytics be your primary case defense. Impact turns and link turns are exciting.

Some Things

- Be sassy, not mean. If you're unsure which category something falls in, just be nice.

- Don't steal prep.

- Death is probably bad.

- Don't ask or be afraid to go to the bathroom and get water. Obviously don't be excessive but live your life.

- Don't say my name, call me "judge," or anything else during the debate. Just feels weird.

Warren Sprouse Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Matthew St-Germain Paradigm

7 rounds

pronouns: he/him

(yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail)

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Current Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2020).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with a few years off, just about 22 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until this year (2019). I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected as a valid form of argumentation. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as a judge is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. The further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you. When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument. I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

  • I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.
  • Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.
  • Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.
  • The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.


  • It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.


  • Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.


  • If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.
  • You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.


  • First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.
  • Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.


  • Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.


  • The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.
  • Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

  • Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation


  • I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.


  • And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.
  • Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.
  • I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.
  • I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."


  • I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.
  • Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.


  • Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

Chris Stinson Paradigm

7 rounds

Name: Chris Stinson
Affiliation: Minneapolis South
Pronouns: he/him/his

My Background:

I debated in High School for Rapid City Central in South Dakota in the late 90s
I debated in College for Concordia in Moorhead Minnesota in the early 2000s
I started coaching in college and have actively coached ever since
I judge more than 50 rounds on any given topic

What you need to know:

I’m trying to be fully present in debates. When I was younger I allowed myself to be distracted by how my teams were doing, social media, etc. I don't think that's fair for you so I'm doing my best to break my bad habits.

I will try to judge the round without inserting my personal biases. Again, I want to be fair and honor the work that you've put into the activity.

I’m trying to keep up with point inflation. I know a lot of coaches my age are trying to hold the line. I don't think that's fair to you. My scale is at the bottom.

I think that for most debates that should be enough. Of course, you’re not doing your prefs for the easy debates. Below are some additional things that you should know about me in close debates.

My (self reported) bias:

I'm very liberal in real life. I've made my living fighting, full time, for racial, economic, and queer justice. I identify as gay. Capitalism, racism, patriarchy (including hetero and cis patriarchy), agism, ablism, and christian hegemony form an interlocking system of oppression that benefits very few, the primary feature of which is it's ability to divide us against one another. Most people would describe me as a K judge.

I also believe the state can be reformed and that those reforms can be transformational. I had the great honor to work on campaigns to win the freedom to marry, combat bullying, and allow transgender high school students to participate in school activities as their full authentic selves. I cried tears of joy when those policies were implemented. The Paul Wellstone quote, "politics is not just about power and money games, politics can be about the improvement of people's lives, about lessening human suffering in our world and bringing about more peace and more justice," pretty much sums up why I do politics.

I'm the education lobbyist for a lefty labor union (SEIU) in Minnesota.

What you probably want to know:

Comparisons: I will give more weight to warrants that were in 2NR and 2AR than to warrants that I only read in evidence after the debate.

Theory: In my default framework I evaluate theory/framework first, followed by discourse followed by traditional policy making impacts. I'm not locked into this framework but "theory is a gateway issue" and "discourse shapes reality" seem true so that's where I start.

Evidence: I read less than I used to and a lot less than other judges but I still want to be on the email chain.

Prep: Don't steal it. Prep time ends when you save the speech doc. I also expect your partner to stop prepping. I have no interest in policing your bathroom behavior.

Perm Double Bind / Perm All Other Instances: I have not yet heard a debater explain these arguments in a way that is persuasive to me. "Do the Plan and the non competitive parts of the Alt" doesn't make sense to me as a test of competition, since it simply asserts that there are parts of the Alt that don't compete with the Plan. If you want me to evaluate the perms as an advocacy that I can vote for at the end of the debate I will need you to invest time describing the world of the perm.

Bad debates are always bad so do what you like, what you're good at, and have fun.

I'm happy to answer more specific questions. Just ask.

The scale I intend to use (lifted from jonahfeldman on the CEDA forums):
29.5 - 30: One of the greatest debate speeches I have ever seen
29 - 29.4: Should be one of the top 5 speakers at the tournament
28.7- 28.9: Should be one of the top 15 speakers, but not top 5.
28.4 - 28.6: Should be in the top 25 speakers. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at octos.
28 - 28.3: Good, but needs improvement. Should not get a speaker award. Should clear if 5-3 and elims start at doubles
27.5 - 27.9: Some things that were good, but also some areas of major improvement needed.
27 - 27.4: Areas of major improvement needed
Below 27: Was offensive/rude/dangerous. Needs to be told after the round what they did that caused a large drop in speaker points.

Kyle Subade Paradigm

3 rounds

Debated at GBS

Top Level-I prefer DAs and CPs over any kind of K, but I am willing to vote on anything if it is explained properly. I will only vote for a dropped argument if it's pointed out by the opposite team, but it still has to be explained to me why they should lose on it. It is up to you to convince me why I should vote for you, and I should not have to do any work for any of your arguments after the last speech.

Affirmatives: I am a policy-oriented judge, and I prefer affs that are centered around USFG action and that is grounded in the topic. K Affs are not my thing, but I would still vote for them. I am more likely to vote for Policy Affs than K Affs.

Disads- I love a good Disad/Case debate, but you have to properly impact out your DA for me to vote on it.

Counterplans- Love Counterplans, but you have to provide adequate solvency advocates, as solvency deficits can hurt your chances to win on the CP.

Kritiks- I understand the generics of Ks, but I am not that well versed in the specifics of a lot of Kritiks, so it is really up to you to explain that to me during the round.

Theory- It is a hit or miss for me, Limit on condo is worlds but that is a soft limit, but I may vote for it if you can convince me otherwise. Otherwise, it is really up to you to prove to me why I should reject the team.

Topicality- Topicality I think is a great negative strategy if done right. It is up to you to prove to me why your interpretation is the best for debate, and properly extend your impacts throughout the entire debate for me to vote for you.

Remember to flow, time your own prep, and DO NOT STEAL PREP

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, and my email is, I will add some speaker points if you add me to the chain without asking.

Ashley Thurber Paradigm

2 rounds


-Please flow. It makes it easier for me to flow.

-Time your own prep and speeches.

-Don't be rude to your partner or the other team.

-Try to use all of your speech time.

-Give a roadmap before your speech and stick to it.


-I like them. I think they're good arguments to make. If you read one, make sure you understand it and how it functions. Make sure it's competitive and that it has an external net benefit.


-I like these too. Make sure you understand the internal link chain of your DA and have a decent impact card. Specific links are good too, so if you have them, read them.


-I'm familiar with Ks, but I didn't read them very much. I will vote on a K, but as with any argument, you need to explain it.


-I will vote on T if it is extended throughout the round. Make sure you explain the voting issues, your interpretation, why it's better for debate, and why the aff violates your interpretation.

Speaker Points:

I don't generally give below 27.5 speaker points. That being said, if you're rude to your partner or your opponents or if you say something offensive, you will get less than that.

Cally Tucker Paradigm

4 rounds

Cally Tucker

Gbn '19 (Fourth year debater)

Put me on the email chain and feel free to email me after round with any questions-

Overall things to keep in mind

- Be clear

- Please do not shake my hand

- Be respectful of both me and the other team. It will impact your speaker points if you are being rude/disrespectful throughout the debate. That being said, offensive comments will not be tolerated. I will issue a warning/stop the round at any point if I feel the need too

- Please flow

- Time your own prep, speeches and cx

- Don't be rude during cx, do not repeatedly bombard the other team if they don't answer your question to your liking. Tag team is fine, try to answer yourself, if you can't, defer to your partner

- Spread, but don't let that get in the way of clarity. If you need to slow down to be more clear, then do it

- try to debate off your flow in the 2ar, 2nr

- give a road map before the speech

- use all speech time

- your arguments are only as good as what I have on my flow


I like them and read them a lot and you should too. If you are reading them, make sure they are competitive. Against them, theory (condo bad, dispo bad, process cp's bad, 50 state fiat bad, etc), perms (make as many as you can), and defense. Make sure your cp has a net benefit, and make sure that it works. I don't like consult cp's (possible cheating) but if you really sell me on it, I will consider voting on it.


Make sure your link story is clear and that your impact card is decent. If you are extending them into the block, make sure you have impact calc throughout at the top and line by line for any args they have. Against disads, have good defensive arguments and explain why it doesn't link. If their link story is bad, or their unq is bad make sure to point it out and tell me why.


I will vote on them but I don't read any others besides neolib often. I am familiar with most, (most likely familiar with any you novs will run or JV). Make sure your alt is well explained and why it is effective in and out of the round. If the alt is to just reject the 1ac, you need to really sell me on why that is important to the ideology of your kritik. If you are against a K, read framework and explain why their alt is bad. Most alts are not very good, but you again have to sell me on this and explain it. AFF: Read condo and make perms.


Topicality is good. I'll vote on it if it was extended well and the voting issues were explained throughly. Make sure you also explain your interpretation. TVA's are good.

Speaker points

I generally stick to 27.5+. being rude, really arrogant or disrespectful will significantly dock your speaks. If you get below a 27.5, it is for a reason, and if you'd like to contact me with any questions as to why, you can email me.


Kim Wasser Paradigm

7 rounds

I'm a classic policy judge. I'm the policy-maker (Madame President) and I need a plan of action to vote on. If you run a plan that is based on a "K", or if you are running a "K" itself, please give me a plan of action to vote on. I need to know how this is going to work in the world. If you want to deconstruct the government, I need to hear a plan to take down the current legal structure, and I need to hear why the leader of a country should prefer to give up that power.

I don't like speed, so if I say "clear" you need to slow down. If I cannot understand you, I will not flow the arguments you're making, which may cost you a round. You've been warned.

For Negative, a counter-plan is not necessary; if you can properly explain why the status quo is in the nation's best interest, I will vote on it. I have heard and voted for and against "T" arguments.

Lauren Wittenmyer Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

keith barnstein Paradigm

7 rounds

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 5 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocary as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

maddie dunne murphy Paradigm

7 rounds

i go to glenbrook south and usually run kritikal arguments, but please do not change your argument style for me.

i enjoy watching policy debates, but you just might have to explain the da/cp to me more in depth.

please flow and be present in the round! if you don't show you care, i won't either.

i think a lot of debates come down to impact work done in the 2ar/2nr - so please do impact analysis in these speeches.

overall, i will pretty much listen to any arguments unless it's problematic+offensive.

please be nice in round! it is important, and it will help your speaks. confidence is key, just please be respectful.

also, feel free to email me with any questions - most importantly, try your best and have fun! :)

richard jo Paradigm

4 rounds

Updated for Niles 2019


Contact Information:

I debated at New Trier High School for four years, as a 2A, during the Surveillance to Immigration topics. I was pretty competitive during my four years of debate, earning a bid to the TOC in my senior year.

I have experience with a wide variety of arguments, but haven’t done much research on the Arms Sales topic (I have judged 0 rounds prior to the Niles tournament). This shouldn’t dictate your strategy in front of me, but you should CLEARLY explain acronyms in debates where you’ve done the research and I haven’t. Be competitive, but don’t be disrespectful to your opponents. Jokes of debaters like Jack Altman, Roland Kim, Jackson Miller, Zach Lim and Nadia Firozabadi are appreciated.

Tech > Truth is a general rule, as I would like to stick to my role as a judge, which is to determine who did the better debating. But that doesn’t mean I’ll ignore how truthful your arguments are. Both teams should spend time explaining their arguments using good evidence and warrants. I won’t ignore a bad argument just because it’s bad, but good explanation goes a long way.


States CPs are definitely bad. Conditions CPs and Generic Process CPs are probably bad, but are also necessary generics on a large topic (although I don’t know how BIG the arms sales topic is). The negative MUST prove an opportunity cost to the plan that takes the form of at least one net benefit with a link germane to the plan. PICs are definitely good, and PICs that punish bad aff plan texts are even better. New 2NC planks are ok. I will lean negative on most theory issues, including conditionality, especially when the affirmative has a vague or new plan text. Three conditional options are probably ok, anything past that is a little too much. I will also probably kick the CP.

Permutations are great, but I find that teams often read a flurry of them in the 2AC without a purpose in mind. Spend some time talking about how the “permutation” interacts with the net benefit - how it affects the risk of the link to the disadvantage - even if you sacrifice some of your time in the 2AC.


I’m not the best judge for you if you’re running some post-modern kritik that I cannot understand. Throughout my career, I mostly debated against/about identity, neolib and security kritiks and that is the literature you should assume I’m familiar with. I’m honestly decent for you if you read the kritiks above because I’m sure most judges have the same reservations with kritiks that I do.

It’s become harder for me to vote for an interpretation that prevents the affirmative from “weighing” its impacts. A debate should probably include a discussion of the costs/benefits of a policy action because that's the topic that the affirmative has prepared to debate. And the affirmative should be able to justify itself by talking about its impacts. Not to mention, there’s a bunch of problems I have when deciding close kritik debates. It’s hard to find a kritik that has a specific link to the plan’s mechanism. It’s harder to find an alternative that solves the kritik’s impacts and doesn't overwhelm the link.

That being said, I am very open to changing these beliefs. You should either win 1) the impact of the kritik outweighs the impacts of the affirmative 2) a reason why the affirmative’s research model is flawed. I often find it frustrating when affirmative teams gloss over these questions and expect an auto-win because their impacts, on the surface, appear much bigger than the negative's. So while it's hard to persuade me that the debate shouldn't be about "how good the plan is", it's easier to persuade me, by impact comparison, that a structural impact is larger than a existential one.

K affs

It’s become harder for me to vote for an interpretation that moves the focus of the debate from “arms sales” to x,y,z topic. Debate is a probably a game, and its competitive arena is probably not the right place to argue against/about identities or survival strategies or etc. It’s not that these identities or survival strategies are not valid, because they CERTAINLY, 100% are. But that’s exactly the point: the historical relation between arms sales and the oppression of x,y,z group is something that’s probably a truth claim: it lacks controversy and it isn’t part of the policy discussion that surrounds arms sales as a whole. But I’m very open to changing my beliefs.


Cool, nothing much to say here.

I do think topicality is one area where research on BOTH sides really matters, especially when the negative has the burden of proving whether or not an aff should be part of the topic. I think reasonability > competing interpretations. The negative needs to win that the inclusion of the aff under the topic would substantially alter debate’s educational/competitive value.


Cool, nothing much to say here. Do pretty much whatever you want here.

Again, as with topicality, research really does matter. Nuanced evidence comparison really makes a difference and it makes my decision easier. Detailed link explanation also really goes a long way on both sides.

Impact Turns

Cool, nothing much to say here. Do pretty much whatever you want here.

***Taken from Dylan Chikko's page: "Please direct any comments you have about me, my judging, or anything else to []...that's the email I use to collect constructive criticism. Really spam it as much as you'd like, especially around 3-5 AM every day. I'll appreciate it."***