2016 Newark Invitational
2016
—
NJ/US
SPHS PF NOV Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Cory Ackerman
Capitol Debate
Last changed on
Sat August 10, 2019 at 4:43 PM EDT
If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!
Last changed on
Sat March 24, 2018 at 11:31 AM EDT
As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.
Also, I flow the best on paper, but I'm a bit irresponsible, so I might not have paper and a pen all the time. If you have extra paper and a pen, then you'd help me adjudicate the debate a lot easier. Otherwise, I'd have to flow on my laptop, which means I'll be slightly more likely to miss an argument. I'll do my best to have paper and pen, but like I said I'm a bit irresponsible.
I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"
On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."
I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.
UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant
Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.
Last changed on
Wed February 7, 2018 at 11:08 AM EDT
Don't make me intervene-- use weighing analysis, framework to make my decision easy. Warrants > evidence. Ask me more specific questions before the round. I generally like to disclose as I feel oral feedback is more meaningful than anything I hastily scribble down in round
Queenstar Banini
Hire
None
Quadriyyah Bell
Hire
None
Liam Brozen
Regis High School
Last changed on
Wed January 15, 2020 at 3:06 AM EDT
Former high school debater.
I will vote for the team that makes the most compelling argument for their side. I give special emphasis to reasoning over an overflow of evidence.
In the first crossfire, I expect both debaters to establish why we’re debating the issue at hand. In other words - why are we talking about this topic? Who can we expect to be affected by its outcome? I will use the arguments made relating to these factors to decide the round.
Joaquin Caceres
Hire
None
Christopher Castaldi-Moller
Regis High School
Last changed on
Wed January 6, 2021 at 4:43 PM EDT
Hello!
Remember both to be respectful toward your opponents and to speak at an understandable pace (please, no spreading - I know you want to get your arguments/evidence/rebuttals/etc. across, but it's important to do so cogently.) Thank you!
Jonathan Chao
Princeton
None
Brandon Defilippis
Maspeth High School
None
Abdoulaye Diallo
Hire
None
Last changed on
Wed November 11, 2020 at 4:29 PM EDT
I'm a junior at Princeton majoring in Physics, minoring in East Asian Studies and Computer Science.
I debated for four years in high school. I like warrants, comparative weighing, and organized final speeches.
Feel free to ask me other questions before the round. Good luck!
Terry Dwyer
Summit High School
None
Lynn Grayzel
Delbarton School
None
Mike Jones
Regis High School
Last changed on
Wed April 10, 2024 at 1:27 PM EDT
I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.
Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.
I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.
Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.
Sanjay Kalghatgi
Ridge
None
Priya Korrapati
Ridge
None
Damian Kulec
The Bronx High School Of Science
None
Hannah Levine
Benjamin N Cardozo
None
Christopher Mignano
Regis High School
None
Elisa Moller
Regis High School
None
Tina Moon-Lee
Regis High School
Last changed on
Thu February 14, 2019 at 11:35 AM EDT
Although I “flow” arguments on a flow pad, please note that I am not a technical judge which provides points here and there and tries to determine which arguments were “carried” to the end of the round or which ones were “dropped”. Instead, I flow to help me keep track of the arguments that are made by both sides and the critical analysis that is conveyed to me to support or refute arguments. Please use the crossfires to ask each other questions and speak to each other, rather than addressing me and asking me to take note of certain statements (which can and should be done during summary and final focus). Consider the final focus as the points I should consider in my reason for judgement write up.
Please weigh, as I find this to be critical to my analysis.
Use "cards" only to support your analysis, not to say "my card is better than your card". A round that heavily relies on "card" after "card" has missed the mark of what debate is about.
Last changed on
Sat December 5, 2020 at 5:30 AM EDT
-I did PF back in the day, and I've judged a lot of it (New to other formats though).
-I love to see strong warranting in debate, and more generally a logical progression of ideas.
Matt Park
Bard High School Early College
None
Brian Schwartz
Summit High School
None
Fr. Michael Tidd
Delbarton School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:16 AM EDT
My paradigm is pretty simple; answer these three questions:
1. Where am I voting?
2. How can I vote for you there?
3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?
I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh.
In addition, I strongly favor teams that provide a clear narrative, one that is usually anchored in a clear framework that defined key terms and concepts fairly.
Andrew Welton
Capitol Debate
Last changed on
Sat September 22, 2018 at 1:51 PM EDT
I really like a properly ran cap K. Down with capitalism!!
Feel free to run anything in front of me, but I would ~prefer~ that you not run frivolous theory.
I believe disclosure is very good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise.
Topical puns in you speech will increase the speaker points you get.
I have previous LD and PF and Policy experience but I was not a tricks debater.
I won't vote on the K if the alt is unclear - same goes for policy advocacies. Clear solvency please.
awelton001@gmail.com for questions
James Whitty
Millburn High School
Last changed on
Sat January 9, 2016 at 5:46 AM EDT
I debate at Millburn High School, meaning I am probably judging novice. If you want anything more detailed, please ask.
Pls don't:
Miscut evidence
Make new arguments in FF
Card dump
Line by line summary/FF
Be racist/sexist/mean
Read K's
Pls do:
Warrant your arguments. I cannot extend an argument if there is no warrant.
Correctly read evidence
Line up Summary/FF
Analysis
Voting issue Summary/FF
Color coordinate outfits
Make puns
Offer me food
Have fun
Compliment my sweaters
Path to a 30 - if your entire case rhymes and meets pentamic hexamater
Path to a 20 - If your case rhymes but only meets iambic hexameter
Path to a 10 - If your entire case rhymes and meets pentamic hexameter but I'm not feeling it
Path to a 0 - If your case fails to rhyme
Mikyyla Williams
Hire
None
Kenji Yeoh
The Bronx High School Of Science
None