Senior at Georgetown Day School, Northwestern '28

Please add me to the email chain: ilasdebate@gmail.com

Top level:

-do what you do best and have fun. I will try to adjudicate the round as best I can.

-case debates are great - the neg should actually talk about the aff, read impact turns, ect.

-judge instruction is great in the 2nr/2ar

-If I have clear you more than thrice I will stop flowing. Be clear in your argumentation - organize your speeches, do line by line, signpost, ect.

-Impact out the 2ar/2nr and make it clear why I’m voting for you, but also why I’m not voting for your opponent. Extend arguments in the 1ar or I won’t evaluate them in the 2ar.

-one liners are great, pls make me laugh, sometimes judging does get a bit boring ill admit

-tech>>>>>>>>>>truth, judging isnt about ideological preferences and I will do my best to compartmentalize them.

CPs

-go for it, but I will get lost on CP theory. that being said, I will defer to tech and my flow

-I won't judge kick unless you instruct me to

Ks

-read links contextualized to the aff pls

-aff: use your advantages as offense. 2ac should impact turn the k. go for cap good, heg good, ect.

-dont read an overview more than 20 seconds long, you are wasting time that should be spent on the line by line

DAs

-win a link and win uniqueness

-do impact calc

K affs

-Idk if JV debaters even read these, novices def shouldn't. but what do I know? not that much apparently.

-go crazy but if you dont yet know what youre doing its probably better to start with a policy aff

-impact turn the negatives model of debate

Hey, I'm Wheezy.

She/Her - 2N (I 2A'd for a little this year)

One-half of Baltimore City ES.

Email Chain: wheezyedebate@gmail.com

If you feel uncomfortable in a round just let me know. Debate should be fun not an uncomfortable space. <3

You should write my RFD for me in your 2nrs and 2ars.

For Novices:

• Read whatever you are comfortable with
• You should be giving good explanations in cross-examination and rebuttal speeches.
• If I say clear it means I cannot hear/understand you.
• You cannot end a speech with >1 Minute left.
• If you use all of your speech time then will boost your speaks.
• If you show me your flows and you flowed all of your opponents' speeches well i'll upgrade your speaks.

For everyone else

Depth > Breath & Truth = Tech

Good with spreading but be clear and slow down on tags and analytics, I will say clear.

TLDR: Best for KVK or Policy v. K, OK for K v. Policy and Theory. I really enjoy watching policy v policy rounds but haven't debated many. Bad for aff v. 6+ off.

Non-black debaters should not run Afropessimism.

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

Add me to the email chain: nadallewellyn@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Nada and I am a lay judge. In your rebuttals please explain why I should vote for you or prefer you over the opposing team. Include impact calculus and make sure to flesh out your ideas well.

Please do not trade off clarity for speed as I will flow what I can and am comfortable with spreading as long as you are understandable, if I can't understand what you say I will have trouble flowing your arguments.

Tech>Truth, but please stay within limits.

Do not run arguments or use language that is racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, ableist, sexist or rooted in any system of oppression as they will result in low speaker points and you will lose.

Good luck and have fun!

time yourself

Newark Science '25

ashleylourencoacts@gmail.com

email chain subject line should be: [Tournament Name] '[Year] | Round [X] | [Team [YY]] (aff) vs [Team [ZZ]] (neg)

I will not pretend I am able to hear and flow every word of the 400 wpm 1ar so no tricks, pen time, don't refer to args by the cite (I don't flow author names)

don't be a jerk

offense offense offense

~~~~~~~~~~

I did policy for like 3 or 4 years. I do LD now. I can judge your debate! If you care about that stuff, I have been in my fair share of bid rounds... I have a K background and for the last three years have read mainly antiblackness and some sett col.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3CLVSEBPs

My Pronouns are She / Her

Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.nwosu8@gmail.com

If there is no road map, why would I flow.

Hi, I am Mmesoma. I was a JV Policy Debater on the Regional and National level but I am now a regular judge for regional tournaments. I would consider myself a traditional judge with small exceptions of how you should debate.

Just a Disclaimer, my face moves a lot without my intention. Please do not think I am bored, not paying attention, confused or upset. Just know that I am very much paying attention. If you see me giggle, you said something funny.

Speed:

Spreading is NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I believe that speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST! You do not need to impress me.

Cross Examination:

I appreciate respectful and peaceful cross examination. I do not flow cross unless it clarifies an argument I am confused about but flowing cross is unusual for me. Yelling and abusive behavior will lead to speaker points deduction (you would probably see it on my face) but rudeness/attitude would not be a major RFD on my ballot.

Tricks

Tricks are NOT appreciated at all. Tricks make me uncomfortable as it is an unfair advantage. Instead of tricking your opponent, I feel as though you are tricking me as the judge.

End of Round

I will most likely give a critique once the round is done as well as the vote, if it is okay with both teams. I determine my vote based solely on what is on my flow and full understanding of both arguments. I am not a super super experienced debater, I may miss things, that it is why its so important to articulate and extent your argument as clearly as possible.

If I deem an argument racist, I am not voting for it.

Thank you so much! See y'all in the round.

hi! this paradigm is built to be very novice-friendly to read. if anything here is unclear or not specific enough don't be afraid to shoot me an email!

add me to the email chain --- nevaeh.sencion2024@baltimorecitycollege.us

Nevaeh (nah-vy-yah) or Rita (or you can call me judge. It is truly & honestly the least of my concerns in a round what you refer to me as)

she/her/they/them

one half of BCC ES

2a/1n (this year) (I've been every speaker position throughout my 4 years)

City College 24'

RKS 23'

Debate Boutique 21' & 22'

Some Stuff About Me:

I'm in my 4th year of high school debate. I currently debate at Baltimore City College, city forever ;), and did 1 year of debate in middle school with the Baltimore Urban Debate League. My favorite topic I've ever debated on was CJR. My lit base now is more K-leaning but I do still read policy stuff on this topic on the neg.

Debate stuff:

it is easier for me to evaluate arguments when you use framing devices such as impact calc & role of the judge/role of the ballot to filter your offense. I usually start at the level of what should I care about in this debate and why does it matter when I'm making decisions. Both of those things are your job to tell me.

I believe that debate is a performance. I care very deeply about how you actually speak in debates. that being said, I have no problem with speed. be as fast as you want, but if I cannot hear you or your speech becomes very unclear I will clear you. I don't like clearing people, but I would rather hear what you're saying than try to guess, for your benefit more than mine.

Argumentations/performances/behaviors/antics that exert antiblackness, misogyny, sexism, homophobia, misgendering, transphobia, sinophobia, Islamaphobia, or anything of the sort are not at all tolerated. Auto L.

If you need something, say something. Don't sacrifice your health or well-being for a round. You will be okay.

If you have a name that is not the one on Tabroom that you would like me to use for you, or pronouns you would like me to use for you please let me know.

Aff Specific---

I find it extremely hard to vote on internal link chains I do not understand. if I cannot comprehensively explain back to you how we get from point "a" to point "b" in terms of impacts to the aff then it is extremely hard for you to win impact calc. I am also, once again not a policy-leaning debater, so throwing out random acronyms and terms does nothing for me without an explanation of what those things mean/why they matter.

K AFFs - As of 02/02/2024 I have never judged a K AFF for this topic. As a K debater, I don't care if you link to the topic or not, genuinely. Just give me a warranted, fleshed-out reason as to why you don't have to. I also believe that in this respect, everything in debate is a performance, the way to generate more offense off of your aff is by using things that happen in the debate to your advantage. I, as a K debater still have a hard time doing this in rounds, and generating ethos off of what is happening and how it relates to the theory of power you are going for about the world/topic/debate space makes it more persuasive.

Neg Specific---

I do not care about how many off you run. Actually, that's a lie. It's hard for me to follow debates that have more than like 5 off. This doesn't mean I can't, it just means the threshold for warrants for all your arguments/what the 2NR should go for becomes higher. I think it is probably more valuable to use your time to flesh out the arguments you know you actually care about & are comfortable explaining rather than to try to shotgun. 2nr decisions are hard, being a 2n is hard (speaking from the perspective of an ex-2n), but go for the offense you know makes the most sense/you have the most impacts that outweigh the aff's/the aff conceded the most of/you could deliver the most confident speech on.

I went for K's on the neg a lot the 2 years I've been a 2n. Mainly Racial Capitalism & Black Feminism.

TLDR:

All that being said, you should debate how you want to debate. Debate what you want to debate about. Do anything you want. Be yourself, have fun, and remember that you are what makes this activity, this activity does not make or define you.

excited to judge you :)

I debated Policy in the national circuit for Science Park High School for three years and Public Forum for the remaining year. Since then I have judged for LD, Public Forum, Parliamentary and Policy.

As a judge I feel that my only obligation is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present and defend their arguments. I will not do any work for either side, what is not said is not assumed and will not be considered. I will vote on any winning argument. (theory, K, etc.)

I am a novice judge. I don’t want any spreading because I would like to hear everyone’s arguments and facts clearly. I understand that time is precious in the debate world. I want to be a fair judge, so in order to do that I need to hear, process, and understand each side’s arguments but I can’t do that if I only catch some of their main points.

As a fair novice judge I will be documenting only what I hear and using the documents they send me as references. If it wasn’t spoken, I don’t write it down. I will not tolerate talking from the opposing team during one’s debate round, that’s what prep time is for so anything you want to talk about can be written down and spoken during the appropriate time(prep and cross-ex)

As a judge I will NOT be documenting cross-ex and the only reason I will be is if I overheard a fact that could’ve been used in the arguments of either Aff or Neg, and I will be writing that down as a note for the coaches to read on and talk with their team. So all arguments made in cross ex must originally be made in a formal speech in-order for me to document it on the flow.

Senior debater at Georgetown Day School

Please add me to the email chain(add both email please): hzhang24@gds.org, georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com

I’m primarily a kritikal debater on both sides, but I’ve run policy affs before and went for cps and das as well.

For HS novice: You should read a plan until you can give a coherent explanation of your alternative model of debate and its implications for the debate community.

In general:

• Tech vs. truth. A dropped argument is not automatically assumed as truth unless extended and explained. I will not vote on arguments that are incoherent, even if it is dropped.

• 2AR and 2NRs need to write the ballot for me. It should paint a picture of the round rather than line by line.

• Credible evidence is important, but it won’t matter unless you flash out the warrant and its implication for the round.

• I find it troublesome that debaters tend to hyper-tag their cards to make claims unsupported by the card itself. If your opponent is doing so, point that out, and it will reward you greatly.

CP: You need to have a NB and extend it in the block. For competition: I’m less familiar with the competition debate. I can keep up with textual and functional, but beyond that, i.e. positional, you need to explain it to me as if I'm new to debate.

DA: Do whatever you want; I can keep up with them. Do impact comparison.

Kritiks: I will likely be familiar with most of your K lit base, so read whatever you want. But do not expect me to do any work for you. You need to explain them thoroughly to me instead of throwing out jargon. I find links that are specific to the plan more compelling than the generic usfg bad ones, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Going for the k doesn’t mean you can neglect case. Dropped case often means the aff gets access to extinction o/w, which is risky for you even when your strategy is going for “you link, you lose.”