Hi, my name is David, and I am a sophmore in high school. I debated for two years, so I am familiar with how debate operates and debate lingo.

Add me on the email chain: pupooluwa1030@gmail.com

I'm ok with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear

Be courteous in debates. Attack the argument, not the people.

I will flow every argument, including tricky and confusing ones, but if not explained thoroughly, I will not vote on it.

Make sure you are extending your arguments.

If you plan on running a K, make sure the story is clear. I'm okay with complex kritiks, as long as you have a clear story and link.

Big fan of organized debates. Make sure your doc looks decently organized and that you are signposting, especially if you're spreading.

Lexington ‘24

Please put me on the chain: lexusdebate@gmail.com and please have a subject line with the tournament name and round number!

I use she/her pronouns

About Me:

I’m currently a senior at Lexington High School and I’m a 2a

For online debate: I’d really prefer if you kept your camera on while debating if possible :)

I look forward to judging you!

General Debate Stuff:

Please be nice to everyone, debate should be fun

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a reason to reject the team

Please signpost (verbally letting me know if you’re switching between flows), it really helps with organization

Tech>Truth, except for discriminatory arguments

Clarity>Speed, go as fast as you want but I won't be afraid to clear you

Please tell me how to frame my ballot

No new args in the block or rebuttal speeches, I won't evaluate them as I think it's too late in the round

I think case debate is honestly underrated, I enjoy a good case debate

Please don’t steal prep!!

K:

I’m not very familiar with K literature

I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff. Otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier

K affs and FW:

I'm not great with K affs, again, I’m not very familiar with k literature. I probably won't understand your aff that well but I will still vote for it if you make a good argument as to why I should

Please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key

I’m gonna need something to vote on

More often than not kaffs will have a small blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, develop your arguments fully, please and thank you

I am definitely more neg leaning on T-usfg and presumption args

T:

Do good internal link debating i.e. explaining how precision/education/predictability/etc. outweighs, and why the other team’s interp is not precise/educational/predictable/etc.

CPs and Theory:

I don't have a lot of strong biases about theory

Condo is probably good, but kicking planks from counterplans that have tons of planks probably isn't. Condo is probably the only reason to reject the team.

I’m fine with agent and process cps

DAs:

Do impact calc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explain the story of the da, especially in the 2nr- make sure that you are doing good link and internal link debates

For LD and PF:

Please please please time your speeches

Read evidence clearly, I think presentation matters as well

Also if there are any speech docs, please send them!

I don't have much experience with PF or LD, but I have been a policy debater for three years at Lexington High School. I'll definitely be looking at the flow throughout the debate so please keep your speeches organized

Speaks:

28.6-29- Amazing :)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.1 If you show me your flows after round

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me (lexusdebate@gmail.com)!

Hi! I'm Diane (you can call me by my nickname Dani), and I'm a high school policy debater at Lexington High School, MA.

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

In Round (General)

1) Be clear when you read. I'm guessing that you're not going to spread, but whether you do it or not, be clear. I won't hesitate to say "clearer". And if you don't make your speaking clearer, you're getting low speaks.

2) Do NOT run 10+ offs. I don't think that's productive for an educational debate (and I believe in education). So if you run that many, I will probably give you low speaks.

3) Signpost. For example, If you're giving the 1NC, make sure you say "First off is the states CP....Next off is the IRS DA....etc". Also, every time you move on from one card to the next, say "next" or "and" or anything that makes it clear that you're reading a new card.

4) Be polite! This is a round, and nobody is debating to hurt each others' feelings. If I hear any concerning remarks, I will give you LOW speaks.

Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended within the context of the round. Engage in the fw debate by directly weighing your standards against your opponents. I won't vote on fairness as a voter, but if you explain why fairness is an I/L to education (the impact), then I would vote on education.

One-off FW: I don't like these debates. But if you MUST, make the debate clear and easy to understand because if you spread analytics, I probably won't be able to flow everything. But truly, try to avoid having these debates as a novice. I don't think you're ready for them.

Theory and T: Make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. Actually take time to impact it out in the 2NR by clearly articulating your standards and voters. T, for me, is pretty easy to vote on: if you run something that doesn't apply to the aff at all or the aff meets your interp, I will probably not vote for it unless the aff somehow drops it. This gets to my 2nd point - NEVER DROP THEORY OR T. This is a voting issue.

DA: UQ is very important, but it's often not debated often. If it's a UQ card from 2018, it's most likely non-unique and even if you argue everything else well I won't vote on the DA.

CP: Do impact calc, emphasize the internal/external net benefit so that it's even clear to a middle-schooler. Then I will believe that the CP is net better. Also, try not to run a CP with 5 planks, that's not good for clash, and it's a tactic that novices are not capable of handling.

K: I am familiar with basic, generic Ks (like cap and setcol), but I don't really know high theory like Baudrillard. I tend to lean towards policy so I don't like Ks but if you HAVE to run it bc you know nothing else, one suggestion: KNOW YOUR K. I only say this because there are a lot of novices who take varsity stuff and read it without properly understanding. Know the link, the impact, and the alt. Also aff you should never drop FW or else I would default neg even though they did a terrible job explaining the K. But remember that FW is not everything, so make arguments along with FW. Also, don't kick the alt.

K affs: Don't read it if you're a novice. I will automatically assume that you don't really know what you're saying.

email: kdeodatt25@gmail.com

Hi debaters!

I do not have a preference in arguments, I'm fine with DAs, Ks, Topicality etc; But if you are going to run an argument, I expect you to know it well. Don't just read an argument and expect me to do the work for you. Part of being a great debater is critically thinking and proving why your point matters.

I weigh framework heavily in a round; tell me who should get the ballot and why.

Clarity>speed... If it is not on my flow, it will not be evaluated in the debate round.

I love a clean-cut debate, be respectful to one another. Have fun and simply believe in yourself!

I would like to be on the email chain:

@gmail.com m325rh <---switch these around, I do this so I don't get spam

General debate things:

Try to make the round as easy for me to vote on as possible, at least 20 seconds at the top of your last speech to tell me what to look at so I know what you think I need to look at more closely and the general story of the round to help me make sense of my flow. I like lots of judge direction and really don’t like making up connections for you, so a great way to make sure I’m looking at it the way you are, telling me a clear rfd would be very helpful

I’ve been debating on this topic for a while so I’ll probably know most of the stuff you’re talking about, but I won’t do any work for you so make sure you make it clear what you’re talking about and how it applies to the round.

When I say open cross one partner does like everything, so until I delete this from my paradigm I'll be asking for closed cross.

I will default to utilitarianism and debate being a game unless told otherwise

Tech>truth

Case:

Please do some case debating please. I’m down to vote neg on some nice link turns and things like that. There isn’t nearly enough case debating around and I think that is a wasted opportunity, affs get away with murder and I would love for them to be called out.

DA:

Very strong on this topic; I like a clean story that makes it easy to understand what I’m voting for. Using the disad to take out case solvency is awesome, just make sure it’s clear what specific parts of case you’re taking out.

CP:

I don’t generally love counterplans on this topic, but if you can make it competitive and theoretically justifiable then I would love to vote on a solid counterplan.

T:

Please extent an interp, violation, and standards clearly in your overviews.

Make sure to do impact calc with your standards. Why does fairness/clash/education matter? Why do you access their standards better?

K:

Make sure to explain the thesis clearly so I understand it, otherwise, if the other team explains it in a way that makes sense I'll believe them.

Make sure you extend all parts of the K unless you want to kick the alt in which case go for it, I'll be down to vote on basically any way you want to read it as long as I understand what I'm voting for

Kaffs

Making the thesis clear and weighing against T is your best way to my ballot. I'm down to vote for it but you must make sure my ballot does something, or if it does nothing why it should still go to you, and say why the TVA doesn't let you read your theory or why reading it under the TVA takes out some form of solvency

I'm also down to vote on rev rev debates, but try not to make it too messy

I'll default to fairness being an impact, but you are welcome to say why it's not or why whatever you do outweigh

Theory

Condo is a reason to reject the team, for anything else you'll need to give reasons to get it up to that threshold.

Needs an interp, a violation, and standards, every single time or I won't evaluate it (this goes for things like severance too)

Make sure to slow down a bit if you know you are fast

My name is Haven, he/him

Please try to use my name in the round instead of judge as it creates better ethos for me.

Email chain: havendoesdebate@gmail.com

When sending out docs I prefer them as a Word doc or PDF. I use Word mostly but if you have to use Google Docs that's fine too.

I am a Senior debater in high school in DC under the Washington Urban Debate League. I have a lot of topic knowledge as I have debated under it but I will still look for your understanding.

I'm not the best person at flowing so make sure to slow down on tags.

I will evaluate all arguments as long as they are explained with warrants.

General comments:

Be creative and have fun

Judge instruction is always necessary

Theory: Anything is fine, but the more creative the theory the more explanation that would be needed.

T: I like topicality, but if you use an interpretation that gives you an extra link to a K or DA then I will give more points.

K: I like all Ks a lot, especially cap and anti-blackness, but you have to be able to break down the alternatives and links and show me how the K avoids the impacts. If you plan on going for FW in the 2NR you should still keep a link.
For extinction o/w the K; even if you are winning magnitude with no probability it kind of zeros the argument.

FW: explain to me what happens after you win FW, a lot of debates stop at winning it. What does me evaluating the debate under your interpretation do for your arguments?

CPs: I think cheating CPs are fine as long as you are winning the competition and no abuse. Otherwise, I would usually lean more aff which makes them a high threshold argument.

DAs: I don't see people going for DA's as much but I would love a DA turns case debate.

If you make me laugh or go for only case turns in the 2NR and win, I'll give high speaks

I can be swayed in either direction take this information and have fun with it.

Hello! My name is Nate Kolker and I use He/Him pronouns. I'm a 4th year policy debater at Brooklyn Tech. My email is nkolker2725@bths.edu

I'm heavily inclined to vote on PIC's theory.

I don't have a preference on speed, as long as you slow down for analytics and tags and speak clearly.

Time Keeping - I will keep time for all arguments, but I highly encourage debaters to keep their own time for each argument and also to keep time for their opponents speeches, in order to encourage a nice tight debate.

I very much as a judge appreciate Crossex's that don't run over time.

I love a good topicality argument if it's run well and you understand it

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you go ahead and run them.)

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus ill formed half baked ideas or ill-linked impacts

I appreciate weighing mechanisms where you explain to me why I should weigh your impacts over your opponents.

Rudeness and talking over your opponent when they are already speaking first will lose you speaker points.

I appreciate when debaters give me voters during the final speeches in a round. Your final speech should have a clear explanation of why I should vote for your team.

I will take off speaks for speeches ended before the time is up.

I'm fine with all arguments as long as you have a link, a link chain, and an impact and you show that you clearly understand them. K's are great

I'm tech over truth to an extent. If an obviously false claim is completely dropped, I'll have to vote on it. However, if there's a tight debate on your obviously false claim, do NOT go for the obviously false claim! I weigh truth in my voting decisions. This doesn't really apply to most traditional nuke war type policy arguments; I get that dramatizing is kind of the point of policy.

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

Hi, I’m Adam! I debated in policy at Berkeley Prep and now am a freshman in college.

Email: latifada23@gmail.com

Top Line: Run whatever you want/are comfortable with. I will vote for any argument. That said I am more comfortable with policy arguments as opposed to Ks and might be a little bit more lenient toward the aff on perm arguments, etc.

See more below for specifics

Affs:

I am more familiar with policy affs. That said, don’t be deterred from running a K aff if that’s what you do best.

DAs:

Love ‘em. DA + case was my favorite argument to go for on neg.

Remember winning a link is the most important part of a DA and to do some sort of impact analysis.

CPs:

I also love them, but the best CPs don’t need a bunch of theory to justify their existence.

Ks:

I am familiar with basic Ks (Cap, Set Col, etc) but note advanced high theory/race theory arguments will need more explaining. That said, if Ks are your strategy then run them and go for them.

Topicality:

T debates are great, but don’t just read blocks. Make sure to get into the line-by-line.

Theory Debates:

I don’t really like theory debates unless it’s something straightforward like condo, so for theory issues on CPs or perms that come with a voting issue, I am more likely to favor rejecting the argument.

K Debates:

Not my area of expertise but I’ve had a few. I am most familiar with Cap K or FW strategies against K affs. If this becomes a complex K debate, please do a lot of explaining to keep me grounded in what’s going on.

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

Hi, my name is Kevin and I do policy debate at Lexington High School in Massachusetts

Email Chain: kevinma13425@gmail.com

TLDR: Tech >> Truth. Please spend time on and weigh every argument and tell me why you should win on that. Signpost and organize your arguments to make it easier for me to flow. Don't be a bad person by being racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I'm okay with open cross as well.

POLICY:

Case:PLEASE EXTEND CASE where there is an overview or anything else. I want to see case extended thoroughly in all speeches or else I will just vote neg on presumption.

Theory and T: Please have standards and why the other team should lose, or else I will probably not vote on it. If you want to go for either of these, make it most of the 2NR, or else it is probably not substantial enough.

DA: Explain why your impacts outweigh.

CP: Make the net benefit clear and explain to me why the risk of the DA outweighs and the solvency of the CP.

Ks: Please know what you are reading before you run one of these. If you don't know anything about it, then it is hard to debate it and I will likely not vote on it. I am more experienced with more policy-oriented Ks like cap so if you debate high theory Ks, you have to explain to me why that is significant. You need to explain what the alt does and how the K outweighs the case. Also, you should be winning framework as well and aff needs to answer this well.

K affs: Don't read this as a novice, you probably don't know what you are saying and I will deduct speaks.

General:

1. Don't be a bad person
2. Have good impact calc
3. Don't run like 10 off, I will deduct speaks for this
4. Be clear on analytics, if you are spreading too fast, I will probably not be able to flow it
5. Flow
6. Don't steal prep
7. Organize your arguments by signposting, etc
8. Don't read new arguments if it is not in the 1NC/1AC or if it is dropped (like reading a new DA in the 2NC)
9. Tell me why your arguments matter
10. Don't drop case

PF and LD:

I don't really have experience in this. Please fully articulate and explain your arguments to me so that I know what is going on. Weigh your arguments and organize them. Explain why your arguments should matter to me. Also for PF, I really don't prefer when evidence is paraphrased.

For Lex '24: First-time policy judge. I have never watched policy rounds so please speak slowly and clearly and you can treat me as a lay/parent judge. I am a senior and a lay public forum debater for Bronx Science.

TELL ME IN UR SECOND REBUTTAL WHERE TO VOTE AND WHY. BE CONVINCING.

email: mansfieln@bxscience.edu

he/him

put me on the chain: IanMcilhenny1@gmail.com

Debater at Mamaroneck Highschool.

I am willing to vote for anything, I am excited to see what you all bring to the table.

Tech>Truth, I will always default to the flow when making a decision.

spreading is cool.

if you're funny you will get more speaks.

Email(Add me to the chain): tatodawae@gmail.com

Name and Pronouns: Edmond Meng, He/him

tech >> Truth and Open Cross is OK

You can call me Edmond instead of Judge.

If you are a novice reading this, please remember that novice year is all about learning (ESPECIALLY LEARNING HOW TO FLOW AND DO LINE BY LINE). It should be fun, and educational. If I vote you down please don't feel bad, it is not a negation against your abilities.

Reading >6 offs, K-affs, against novices during early season is not the best practice. I will not vote you down for it or deduct you speaks, but I suggest you to move onto the next level.

I like any arguments.

READ THIS: Don't bring new Off case positions in the neg block - put them in the 1NC - I am not going not weigh them. DO NOT expect me to do the work for you. Tell me what to think, and how see the debate. OR ELSE I will have to intervene.

Dos and Dont's

DOs

1. Signpost
2. flow
3. Be passionate in Cross, BUT NOT RUDE
4. Line by Line
5. Clarity over speed
6. Overviews
7. Impact Calc
8. Clash
9. Have context I.E. tell me why a certain card you read is advantageous to your specific argument
10. Don't drop case
11. Think of debate as a picture, and you as the painter. tell me why such and such details matter to YOUR ARGUMENTS.
12. Be Confident
13. Be persuasive
14. send speech docs
15. keep track of speech times
16. Do your last speech to a track or music ;)
18. Make arguments on the fly, I love hearing analytics based on empirical examples - IE cards aren't everything. I am not going to read cards for my decision UNLESS you instruct me to do so.

DON'Ts

1. Don't Be a bad person, which includes being homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc.
2. Don't clip cards
3. Don't steal prep(Being unprepared is part of debate. Nobody is truly prepared for everything. Its better to learn time management early)
4. Don't be rude

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY TLDR: Card dumping will not cut it. I'd rather you debate with smaller amount of arguments but with excellent contexts and clash.

gabby

she/her

gabriellamiller423@gmail.com

novices should endorse clash

please try to send docs as fast as possible

arguments have a claim and a warrant

I do not want to vote on out of round issues

have fun and be kind

Maguene Moussavou

Lexington '25

Email: immaculatebaboon@gmail.com - add me to the email chain please have it ready before the round starts

Email chain title: "Tournament name - round number - team [AFF] vs team [NEG]"

Top level comments

PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE EFFICIENT---AS LITTLE DOWNTIME AS POSSIBLE! (I will boost speaks for both teams) TIME YOUR PREP, SEND OUT THE EMAIL CHAIN ON ROUND START

Give me an easy way to vote for you -- judge instruction is VERY GOOD and needed in final rebuttal -- We both don't want judge intervention which is the alternative if I'm not given instruction

Give a roadmap before every speech, it's very helpful for organizing my flow and would look like, "first the IRS DA, CP, then case", say "and" or "next" to signal when you're going onto another card

Please signpost it makes the flow a lot less hard to evaluate post-round, this looks like saying when you're going onto a different argument or answering the opposing teams argument ("Now the counterplan") or flagging the subpoints you're answering (ie. in 2nc saying: "2ac 4...") helps me know directly what you're answering on the flow

top of 2nd rebuttal: why you win the round (15-30 seconds at most)

TECH >TRUTH

Big fan of clash and line by line

I will pretty much vote on anything if it's debated well as long as its not problematic - I will not vote on it if it is barely in the rebuttal speeches (ie. I will not vote on multi-actor fiat if it's only 5 seconds of the 1ar)

Policy Affs: I read a policy aff my entire novice year and now switch off between policy and k-affs - They are obviously a good argument - I lean Hard right > Soft left but as mentioned before, it's not hard to sway me the other way. Soft left gives you a lot better options vs the K,

CPs - It is definitely possible to get really creative with process CPs but make sure you’re able to answer theory. Adv CPs good. PICs are probably theoretically illegitimate without a VERY GOOD reason as to why the reading of a certain word or idea is bad.

DAs - Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are really bad. I can vote aff on 0 risk of the DA. If you’re pairing the DA with the CP, make sure to explain why the CP doesn't link to the DA. This applies to nay other argument but do more than just regular impact calc but actually compare the DA impacts to the other impacts in the round and why I should prioritize. If there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w

T - I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp not just "they dropped x." I'm not opposed to voting on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad.

K - Usually Affs lose when they go for the perm because it is virtually impossible without sufficient no link or a link turn. Instead, focus on extinction o/w, disproving the theory and winning that fairness matters and O/W.

I have an extremely low aff threshold for winning vs nonblack teams reading pess

On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad, try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links.

FW/T-USFG - Fairness is a good internal link and neg teams should go for education and clash a lot more. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I really need good impact framing for this.

K-affs: These can be really interesting with all the ways they can be deployed creatively outside just a preempt to FW, although having the 1AC be about 60-75% a FW preempt is strategic, I prefer these to have a coherent argument and also a justification for why talking about the aff is preferable to talking about fiscal redistribution. Aff teams should aim to impact turn other FW standards like clash and education I'm familiar with most content so run whatev. Debate is a game and I dont think you'll win its not but having something like debate shapes subjectivities is usually a sufficient answer.

Theory

I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Generally, I think perf con is not a voter (but can be a TKO to the K on subjectivity) and TOO much condo is bad but I can be EASILY swayed in the other directions.

Show me your flows after round for +.1 speaks

Ishaan Tipirneni has had a profound influence on my debate views, he has aided me greatly in achieving my 1x TOC Qual, and has bestowed upon me a vast wealth of knowledge to aid my understanding of debate, thus, I vehemently agree with every aspect of this intelligent mans paradigm,barring "fairness is an impact"

She//Her

Northeastern '25

Pine Crest School '21

add me to the email chain: michrubin13@gmail.com

top level

dont be rude plz

tech>truth

conditionality is probably good but I can be convinced otherwise

fire line by line and organization is appreciated

I am vaguely familiar with this topic but please still explain things well.

general thoughts

counterplans: process and advantage cps are rad. cps should be textually and functionally competitive.

disads: incredible. good uniqueness evidence is op. tell me a cohesive story.

topicality: have a good interpretation and impact.

framework v K-affs: debate is a game. big fan of clash and education impacts. answer specific arguments.

k-affs: probably dont pref me. I need a lot of explanation. you should probably impact turn framework instead of trying to convince me you're in line with the topic.

ks: I probably lean towards getting to weigh the plan. links to the plan are preferred. impact calc and judge instruction plz.

add me to the chain: alyssa.santiago@lmghs.org

i like k's :) run anything you're good at though! i'm cool with policy-based debate too if cp's and da's are your thing.

If you want to play rock, paper, scissors with me before a round, I will not back down to such a challenge. (If you lose I won't doc speaks)

mamaroneck 24, 4th year debater--ive read all types of arguments

email chain -- samsiegeldebate@gmail.com

she/her - judge/sam both fine to address me as in round

feel free to ask me about anything, even if it didnt take place in the round, im here to help you learn!

basics:

prioritize your safety over debate. i’m a resource if you need anything at all, feel free to reach out.

have fun and be nice

you do you.

if you are an under-resourced debater and need some help, im happy to slide you some notes/lecture slides, just ask me!

less judge instruction = less happy with my decision

novices should endorse clash

stop spreading analytics, and send them out preferably

i will likely not say clear, but if you are unclear i will not be flowing.

the death of line by line is real and an epidemic

ask pre round if you want to know thoughts on certain arguments

i will either be quite expressive or look angry the entire debate--it is not your fault i am just focused

for high speaks:

tell me you read my paradigm by saying/typing the secret password: "sam you're the best judge i've ever had"

use cx well

tell me your debate hot take!

+.1 if you show me your flows! (i dont care if theyre good or not, try your best)

things that will get you an L + 25

offensive arguments or intentional/repeated disrespect of your opponents

being excessively mean/humiliating will get you a 27.5 maximum - esp if your opponent is significantly less experienced than you are

Current varsity debate at the Henderson upper. I’ve been debating since 2018. I usually debate and not judge. For any competition that sees this prepare to lose.

asmith63@bostonk12.org for any email chains. I use any pronouns but prefer they/them.

For judging: I’m okay with any types of arguments just no performance things. If u starting singing i will mark you down in speaker points. I’m okay with poems , videos and slide shows. Spreading is fine just makes sure you either slow down on your important arguments or share out any docs for me flow. make sure as debaters you are telling me what the roll of the ballot should be and what i should be voting on. Using real world events will makes me want to vote for you. Tie in your personal experience to help me resonate ( for aff and neg ). With that being said, any biased arguments is an immediate vote for the other team. ( racism , sexism , homophobia) I will not tolerate any thing said like this, “ white people are so …” “women are do…” and obviously no slurs even if you are from a minority that can say the slur.

K- kritik debate is my favorite because i am a K debater i’m more likely to vote on these kinds of arguments.

T- I honestly don’t like topicality arguments because the most fun debates are the non topical ones. If u run this argument i won’t be biased but it’s the the strongest argument in my opinion.

Perm- Perms are an okay argument, negative should be stressing to me as a judge why perm fails or it’s an immediate vote for aff.

theory- I love theory arguments i always run them.

Da and cp- they are all the same to me i’m neutral on them.

Hey Everyone!

I'm a former debater affiliated with the Josiah Quincy Upper School.

NAULD Nationals Middle School x2

NAULD Nationals High School x2

Please add me to any email chain GMAIL: KTAN14@BOSTONK12.ORG

I'm fine with any arguments presented during a debate. Ts, Ks, and DisAd are fine as long as the cards are disclosed to each other.

If you don't do any of the explaining or reasoning I don't want to be the person that should process everything.

(PLEASE NOTE) I will not be reading the cards unless theres an disagreement with a card specifically.

K-affs are one of my least favorite cases to follow in policy due to the fact that most K-AFFS dont make sense to me in terms of the concepts presented. Although i'm fine with a K-aff and I wont take any points or i'll vote for the other side if you run a K-AFF, I would just prefer a normal AFF. Some of my favorite arguments include a very good impact analysis. I love nothing more than a good analysis and I believe that some of my favorite part in debate happens here. I also like when a debater makes arguments of why they overweight each other.

Theories are something that I will consider as an argument but I need to know why the theory is more significant than the debate.

Cross Ex is something I will consider in a debate and something I will flow on. Cross Ex is really important to me as it has an huge impact on my ballot. This wonderful time questioning sets the debate and gives me an understanding of how you work as an debater.

Speaking wise, I love a good spreader but as a spreader myself, I would always love it when you slow down during the tagline. This ensures that I can mark down the tagline and have it ready to pull up when needed. Please note that MY BALLOT will be depend on what I flow. If you decided to spread and you are not clear and I don't flow, don't expect to win the ballot.

Other than that, I love debates that have character and passion.

Good Luck!

Kevin Tan

Last edited: 1/12/23

My email: priya.thiri123@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

General Comments:

- When spreading, please emphasize the taglines.

- Roadmaps and signposts are extremely helpful!

- I will track time for all speeches/prep, but I encourage you to keep track of your own time as well.

- To extend a card, analytics are expected.

- Impact calc is very very important. (timeframe/probability/magnitude)

- I like policy affs and am comfortable judging them.

- I like DAs, however, they should link to the aff and be explained really well.

- I like CPs but should have a clearly articulated net benefit

- I am not extremely well versed in K’s but I am willing to listen to K affs as long as they are well explained in CX and speeches.

- I enjoy judging K’s as long as the alts are clear.

- I'm fine with voting on topicality unless neg makes a very strong case.

- I really like framework against K affs and K's and spend a significant amount of time on it throughout the rebuttals.

During the rebuttals, bring everything together. Be persuasive. Don't spread in rebuttals.

Ishaan Tipirneni, He/Him/His

Call me "Ishaan" not "judge" please.

Lexington '24

Qualifications: 3x TOC Qualifier

Email: Ishaantipirneni504@gmail.com

PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE EFFICIENT---AS LITTLE DOWNTIME AS POSSIBLE! (I will boost speaks for both teams)

(VARSITY ONLY) Please post round---it's good to know what you did wrong and if you think the decision is wrong in any way.

Give me an easy way to vote for you---judge instruction is VERY GOOD and needed in final rebuttal---we both don't want judge intervention which is the alternative if I'm not given instruction.

General Comments:

TECH > TRUTH---to a reasonable extent

Make sure you’re clear. If you have to give up speed to be clear, do it. With that being said, you can go as fast as you want

Feel free to read pretty much everything - K's, CP, DA, T, Procedurals, K-affs, etc. - just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Policy Affs: I've read a policy aff for the majority of my career. I lean Hard right > Soft left, but as mentioned before, it's not hard to sway me the other way.

CPs: It is definitely possible to get really creative with process CPs but make sure you’re able to answer theory, competition, and intrinsic perms.

DAs: Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are really bad. I can vote aff on 0 risk of the DA. Make sure your 1NC shells are highlighted with some sort of argument being made. I understand the urge to read a 25 second DA shell (I've done it myself), but these are almost never viable 2NRs.

T: I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp, not just "they dropped x." I'm will vote on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad. Impact calc is HUGE for T debates and are necessary to get my ballot.

K-affs: I think these can be really good when creatively done, but please make your argument coherent and not just a preempt to FW. I usually find presumption a really good option against k-affs because they often don't make much sense at all. Make sure you have some reason to vote for you. In terms of the content, I am chill with high theory, race, cap or whatever amalgamation of political theory you call an aff.

K: I will vote on basically any K. However, there needs to be some great 2NC/1NR explanation on the K if it's a 1 card K. On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW, so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me, so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link, depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad; try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links.

FW/T-USFG: Fairness is an impact. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I really need good impact framing for this. K-affs shouldn't go for the W/M unless you have a plantext.

I have no opinions on theory. It just comes down to the impact calc debate.

If you make a GOOD joke about Misty Wang, Billy Blechman, Maguene Moussavou, Jamie Levitan, Ishaan Deepak, or any ex-Lex debater I will boost your speaks.

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.

Lexington ‘24 - she/her - 2n

mistydebate@gmail.com -- add me to the email chain

Novice year is for learning!!!

In order to win my ballot:

• explain why I should vote for you

• why does your impact o/w your opponents impacts?

tech > truth -- if the other team drops an arg, you need to extend a claim/ev/impact on why that dropped argument matters

To boost speaker points:

• signpost between flows/args

• go line by line

• make smart analytics yourself without reading varsity blocks

• open cx is fine as long as the person who’s supposed to be answering is doing most of the talking, otherwise your speaks will be lowered

+0.1 speaker points if you show me your flows after the debate ends

Lexington '25

He/They

Call me Ben, not judge.

capk2nr@gmail.com

TLDR : Tech > Anything. Read whatever

3rd year debater mostly on the Nat/NE Circuits. 2N/1A. I've gone for everything from high-theory Ks to garbage counterplans. I went for the K a lot last year, I've done a lot more policy stuff this year.

Tech > All else. I will vote on anything insofar with very few caveats (explained in non-negotiables at the bottom of this paradigm). If I'm told earth is flat because it was presented in a way that out-debated the other side then I will presume that to be true.

With that being said, the best rounds involve specific rejoinder of topical government action with well-researched positions.

All argumentative preferences are easily overcame by out-debating your opponents. If anything, I won't hesitate to vote down a team who cannot answer arguments I think are "bad"

T

The more ridiculous the interp, the more I am persuaded by aff reasonability.

PTIV good or bad is up in the air

Limits in the abstract are probably good, albeit with the trend of "in one or more of the following areas" topics it seems they are less and less needed

CPs + CP Theory

Aff leaning on 50 State Fiat, Private Actor Fiat, International Fiat (Unless it's an international topic then I'm even), Word PICs, Cardless CPs bad, and 2NC CPs

Even on Process CPs (including consult, QPQs, etc), solvency advocate theory (insofar as the neg has a card describing the mechanism of the CP), and kickable planks

Neg leaning on everything else

CPs should probably be textually and functionally competitive

Massive Adv CPs that are well-researched are a joy to look at

Condo is probably good and is a question of models. If you're going to defend it, defend infinite. If you're aff, defend a non-arbitrary interp such as infinite dispo or no condo.

Neg teams should go for abusive CPs more when the aff refuses to go for theory

If the aff reads addons then new CP planks are probably justifiable. Beyond that, 2NC CPs are theoretically abhorrent especially if its to get out of a straight turn.

DAs

Warranting > card spam

If there's no link then turns case doesn't need to be answered. If there's no uniqueness and turns case goes dropped the neg has zeroed the aff

Aff teams (ironically) forget that you can weigh the aff. Use your internals to maybe solve a part of the DA if possible?

Aff teams should also straight turn DAs and make the block a living hell to give.

Case Specific DAs >> Topic Specific > Agenda/Elections > Riders > Horsetrading

K v Policy

Pretty comfortable with most K literature and have enough of an understanding to where I wouldn't lose my mind insofar as you explain things. I'm most well versed in Marxism and Psychoanalysis

The best Ks either disprove the 1AC materially or prevent the aff from being weighed

Links should be contextualized to the aff and have uniqueness. Links of omission are not links, they are historical facts that make totalizing claims.

The alt should do something or if you kick the alt explain why it doesn't matter.

PIKs are probably bad and FPIKs are asinine. All other theory I'm probably even on

Perfcon is a bad justification to sever reps for a perm but is a good reason why they cant access framework offense.

K v K

Explain the perm because that's what these debates usually come down to. I've gone for Ks v Kaffs a decent amount so I'll be comfortable in this debate.

Neg teams should go for PIKs and FPIKs here because aff teams don't punish it and usual "its unfair" presses don't work.

Aff theory here is usually a joke but often mishandled.

T v Planless

The best debates center around the rejoinder of hypothetical government action. The ballot only decides a winner and a loser. Kaff teams would like me if they can out-tech their opponents. If not, I am much better for the negative.

Aff teams should impact turn education and clash a lot more than fairness unless they're confident they can technically win those debates.

Debate is most certainly a game and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. Anyone who tells you it's just a game is also wrong. Debate is simultaneously a unique space for each person and a place with incentives

Fairness and clash are both impacts. Go for whatever. Fairness is also a good internal link.

Unfairness good debated even close to evenly is unequivocally a losing argument

T is not analogous to material violence. It also feels like textbook pornotroping violence.

Non-Negotiables

Not voting on things outside of the round or any argument that falls under an ism.

If you say something that falls under an ism it's an L + Lowest speaks

Novices should read a plantext or get an L + 26

PF

Treat me like a tech judge. This doesn't mean I'm going to be happy with tricks but my threshold to respond to warrantless args is quite low.

I know some PFers and am honestly abhorred by the evidence ethics some of y'all have. Make an email chain, send full cards with citations (I can't believe I have to put this here). Do not paraphrase. Instant loss with the lowest speaks I can give otherwise, and probably a link to a Youtube video about why plagiarism is bad.

No new args after second summary and no new weighing in the final focus.

Idk why weighing is a separate page/part of the roadmap, it should prolly be done on the impact debating part

LD

See PF above for tricks. I'm a policy kid so I guess y'all run wild with whatever.

I know nothing about phil. Explain to me like I'm 5.

Other Thoughts

Say whatever insofar as its not an ism

New aff =/= incoherent neg theory. If the aff is topical you should be able to debate it. If not then go for T

+0.3 speaks if you're a novice and show me your flows after the round (and they're okay ofc). Tell me BEFORE I make my decision

Speaks start at a 28.5 and go up/down based on in-round performance.

I flow on computer. If you would like my flow after the round, let me know.

Feel free to post-round, I don't mind one bit. If you're rude, I'll reciprocate :)

If you're a novice and your A strat is block-botting down things your varsity handed you I will cap your speaks at a 28 and give you the “you shouldn’t do this” lecture

Be aggressive but not rude. An example of this is you can say something is rly rly stupid but don’t be demeaning to your opponents. I’ll lower your speaks down to a 26 if you act like this depending on how egregious it is. I’m unlikely to end/decide the round on it unless it was abhorrent

Novices need to stop dropping case.

Eleanora Lawrence (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml)and Brendon Morris (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml) taught me how to debate and influenced my opinions on the activity.

I have an RBF, don't take it as I'm grumpy.

i'm katie, i'm a varsity debater at mamaroneck

please put me on the email chain: katherinekalinwong@gmail.com

judge instruction is good, why am i voting for what you want me to?

be sure to explain your link chain explicitly

try to be clear over being fast, but spreading is fine

try your hardest to use all your speech time

be respectful and kind to your partner and the other team

don't steal prep!!!

be engaging in your speeches it'll help your speaks

tech>truth

organized pretty speech docs get you higher speaks

Hi! My name is Kevin. Please don't call me judge.

I am currently a junior at Georgetown Day School.

If there is an email chain, please add me to it!

-textualperm@gmail.com

Please include the tournament name, round, and teams debating in the title of the email chain.

When sending out the speech doc, please send it out in a static document. This means a word document or PDF attached to an email is fine but not a link to a Google Doc. If you are using Google Docs, please download it as a static document and send that downloaded file.

I come into the round with a few irreversible beliefs:

-Tech > Truth.

--If there is no clash over an issue or an issue is evenly debated on both sides, I will utilize truth as a tiebreaker.

--If I believe the debate has become problematic, I will intervene. But I will try to let the debate play out.

-I will flow.

-I will time each speech and cross-ex and stop flowing once my timer is finished.

-I will vote with one team winning and the other team losing the debate.

-Cross-ex is binding.

-I will evaluate ethics violations under the tournament rules. If there are no tournament-specific rules, then I need a recording to evaluate the ethics violation. If one team decides to raise an ethics violation, I will ask them to confirm, and if they confirm, I will stop the debate there and decide the debate on the results of the violation. The debate will not continue.

I also come into the round with a few assumptions that I will default to until they are contested in the round:

-If not contested, I will presume that debate is about the hypothetical implementation of a government policy, where the role of the aff is to provide a plan detailing a shift from the status quo that is topical under the resolution and it is a desirable change and the role of the neg is to prove the aff has not met one of these burdens.

--This means I default to judge kick if neither team has contested the issue of conditionality or the neg has won they should have the right to condition and neither team has contested over the idea of judge kick.

--Additionally, this means I will vote on presumption if the aff does not extend a plan and contest this model of debate, even if the neg does not make a presumption argument.

-For any theoretical issues brought into the debate, I will default to evaluating them under competing interpretations until told otherwise.

-I will default to allowing the neg to access unlimited conditionality and perms being a test of competition.

-I will presume that having more fairness, clash, and education in debate is good and that death is bad unless convinced otherwise.

For any other theoretical issues, I will default to the course of doing the least action. If no objections are made to an action done by the other team, I will default to considering it theoretically legitimate.

Other Things:

Please sign post when moving to other flows and give adequate time to allow me to switch flows.

Please mark your own cards (state it orally and mark it on the doc) and be prepared to send a marked copy of the doc if the other team requests for it.

I will take notes during cross-ex but will not evaluate anything from it unless it is reiterated in a later speech.

-If a team later contradicts what they stated earlier in cross-ex, it is your burden to point that out to me.

In general, I will try to not to look at the speech doc unless it is necessary to resolve a debate over a piece of evidence or I am instructed to do so.

-This only applies to cards you mark, not cards that you did not read. You do not have an obligation to tell the other team what cards you read or did not read.

You are obligated to answer the other team’s questions in cross-ex, but not in prep.

If you insert a rehighlighting of a card, I will treat it as an analytic about the content of the card if it is about a part already highlighted and read by the other team and flow it as an analytic claim otherwise. In other words, read the rehighlighting if you want me to consider it.

Open cross-ex is fine.

You may end cross-ex early, but unless you are mav, you cannot use the remainder of cross-ex as prep.

Preferences:

Good line-by-line will increase your speaks: you should answer arguments in the order they were made.

Good luck and have fun!

For last chance: I did not prep the s230 topic so make sure to explain everything well!

senior + PF captain at bronx science!

add me to email chain: zainos@bxscience.edu and bronxscipf@gmail.com and pls make the subject "Tournament, Round, Teams"

please time yourself and be honest with your time

to win: weigh turns. don't drop turns. warrant. frontline in second rebuttal. weigh as early as u can. extend everything through the round well. don't give messy speeches. signpost. cut cards.

Lex 24:
Hello, my name is Anna (she/hers). This is my first time judging at Lex and I've been judging policy debate on and off for the past 5 years at the Boston Debate League.

Email: anna.zhao.az399@yale.edu, please add me to the chain.

I was a pretty straightforward policy debater during my time and ran Ks occasionally depending on my partners. I am much more familiar with policy than Ks. As the neg-facing Ks, I usually went for FW/T. I was the 1A/2N if that is of any importance to you. I go into all the rounds “tabula rasa”. Please outline your voters and the role of the judge as early in the round as possible.

For speaker points please slow down on the tag and author. Be yourself and be cordial to your opponents.