2021 NYCUDL HS AND MS 4
2021 — Online, NY/US
Policy Beginner Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI want to be on the email chain, my email is awavrakh@gmail.com. If you have any questions, feel free to email me.
I debated high school policy debate for 4 years with Goldstein HS, I've judged and taught parli and I've judged PF.
I don't like:
Existential impacts, don't give me a million ways nuclear war will happen, high magnitude impacts are almost always unconvincing and non-unique, if you're gonna run that kinda arg, make sure the impact story makes sense
Generic t arguments, I'll vote on it if it's carried well but if you can run off case and on case, then t really has no place in your 1nc. Time skews are just boring for everyone involved, throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks isn't an effective strategy
Spreading tags and analytics, as that's the stuff I'll need to flow. If I don't get down something important because your spreading through it, don't be surprised if I have to make my own conclusions to write an rfd
That aside, I'm fine with anything so long as it's thoroughly explained. I also like if you're funny, snarky, or bring up the mood somehow... it makes for good debate, brightens everyone's day, and usually gets you higher speaks
Anyway, have a good time, have fun, and good luck
Put me on the email chain sbah003@citymail.cuny.edu
(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)
I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.
Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy and PF rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. I go by any/all pronouns. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).
Top Line:
I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.
Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this
1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"
Also, some other things:
1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.
Hi y’all! My name’s Jailyne (she/her). Please add me to the email chain polancojailyne@gmail.com
I debated policy at Leon Goldstein HS in NYC for 3 years and graduated from NYU in May 2024. Much of my previous work experience is in politics/foreign relations, so I’m aware of what’s “going on in the world” heh.
That being said, though, I haven't judged in a while. I haven't debated in a looooong time. I know the basics of policy debate and can follow a round, but don't expect me to know jargon or topic-specific concepts. My brain is soupy.
I’m tech > truth to an extent. Please don’t lie about stuff that’s obviously true in order to “technically” win the round. I always found strict tech debates boring at best and brain-rotting at worst, as both a debater and a judge. I’d like to think that debate is more than just winning and losing, but you can still win rounds by telling the truth!
Here's a bullet-point list of other stuff you should know:
- I'm cool with open cross (I don't flow cross but you should still use it strategically)
- I have a higher threshold for DAs that have ridiculous impacts with no concrete link story
- Multiple CPs/alts annoy me
- I’ll vote on T if I have to, but I won't enjoy it
- Policy v Policy rounds are straightforward for me to judge, but that's only if both teams make it that way
- K rounds are also good when they’re explained clearly. I'm familiar with Cap and Gender/Queer args, Baudrillard, Antiblackness/Afropess, and Foucault. But you’re the one debating, so please make sure to explain your arguments if you’re running Ks like these!
- Go slow on tags and analytics
- Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Duh.
If you have any specific questions, ask me before the round :)
Hello!
I debated on the policy team for Brooklyn Tech for 4 years and now I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan (not on the debate team here though).
For policy: I read a solid mix of everything in high school so I am probably familiar with whatever type of argument you want to run, that being said I have only judged a few rounds on the water topic so make sure to explain whatever you're reading well, especially DA scenarios and things like that (obviously explaining your arguments applies to everything you read but it will be especially important in that context). All I ask is that you properly compare impacts/evidence and tell me how to weigh your arguments—when I go to write my ballot I want to already know how to prioritize different arguments and what I should be voting on.
For PF: Though my background is in policy, I've judged a fair amount of PF rounds and feel comfortable doing so. However, I may not be familiar with the intricacies of the topic so keep that in mind.
Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round about my own debate history, other specific preferences, etc. Good luck!