varsity debater and novice coordinator at mamaroneck

she/they

new judge but I have practice judging mamaroneck novices

I have more experience in policy, but K's are always welcome and fun to debate

add me to the email chain (pls don't make fun, idk why my parents allowed me to make my own email) - addydogb@gmail.com

show me your spotify wrapped to get +.1 speaks

ways to win/get good speaker points

• tell me how to evaluate the round and why you should win
• clarity>speed - if I can't understand what you're saying I prob won't flow it
• speeches off the flow - shows great understanding and will get you +.2speaks if you show me your flows
• don't drop arguments
• impact calc!!
• be nice and kind to your opponents - this is a safe educational space don't compromise that
• if you run a K please explain it
• adapt and contextualize framework in round
• give a roadmap and signpost
• make jokes and have fun! we all stress too much over debate, jokes get +.1 if well crafted
• if you run a da tell me the story of it and explain link chain. Disad Dan is my BFF!!!! Wooooooooooo (that was mr. lee, but is true)
• states cp has a soft spot in my heart, but only if it's run well do it justice
• theory args are cool and I will vote on it, but explain it well, don't just read blocks talk about how it affects debate in roundand why it should be prioritized
• novices should endorse clash
• try to refrain from using acronyms they can be extremely confusing

things to avoid/what causes you to lose and get bad speaks

• being offensive - AUTOMATIC loss and a 25
• being rude and mean to your opponents - there are many ways to critique arguments, so please don't do so at the expense of your opponents (ex: this is the weirdest thing I have ever heard, they don't even know what they're doing) this just shows you can't logically debate and go after the people you're debating instead - this WILL lose you speaks
• don't interrupt or be rude in cross - this goes for both asking and answering questions
• please extend arguments it's awful to lose on a dropped arg
• DONT STEAL PREP -.3 speaks could also have you lose if other team makes arg about it

Blechmanbilly[at]gmail[dot]com

time yourself

ask questions about my decisions after the round

good luck

Andreas Charalambous, Mamaroneck High School '25

andreasoscarcharalambous1@gmail.com

GENERAL:

Tech>Truth (I'll vote for anything).

You should ask questions after the round---you can and should post-round me.

Speed is good. You can go as fast as you want but have some clarity.

For anything specific, I agree with everything in this paradigm:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=11643

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!

YES, INCLUDE ME IN THE EMAIL CHAIN diallob2@bxscience.edu,bronxsciencepolicynovices@gmail.com ; bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

Hey all! Please add me to the email chain -- diallob2@bxscience.edu; bronxsciencepolicynovices@gmail.com; bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

My name is Baila Diallo (he/him/his) and I am a current varsity debater and novice director at The Bronx High School of Science.

Tech > Truth.

Some general things for novices - Be on your best behavior, try to have fun. Do whatever you want don't adapt your strategy because of me I am comfortable judging policy of k rounds.

Hey I'm Kara

Please add me to the chain: karadillon07@gmail.com

Mamaroneck '25, third year debater, pronouns are she/her

Policy debater, always been a 2A--

- treat me like a lay judge LOL

- Tech > truth

- do what you are most comfortable with

- be kind-- wont tolerate in round violence

- CX -- dont be rude -- cx is very important, know your aff, just dont be annoying. Interrupting and talking over people, being rude is different from being convincing

- plz write the ballot for me, be as convince as possible so i dont botch the ballot. top of 2nr and 2ar should have comparison, make statements about why im voting aff or neg.

K affs

justify why you are reading the k on the aff, should be related to the resolution in some way. Explain why your aff comes first. I am not versed in high theory, please take extra time explaining it and its relation to the debate space. Explain why the ballot solve/weigh the importance of the ballot/how your model of debate solves. Dont just say buzzwards-- assume I'm dumb because I probably am. Give me an explanation

Impact out disads on FW/ explain why they matter

Framework + T

I often read FW or T in rounds-- I will vote on either.

counter interpretations should have comparison, explain why your interp is better. Have a clear violation or ill default to we meet.

KvK debates

As a policy debater-- ive never been in a KvK debate so please do more explanations

Explain your advocacy, explain buzzwords, case debate is important

Policy Affs

Please act like I dont know how your aff works, truth is I probably dont. Start explaining your long internal link chain to me during cx and your rebuttals, especially if its kinda iffy or not obvious.

Your entire 1AC is a justification for your way of understanding the world. Use that in K debates – don’t get distracted from talking about what you know best.

I tend to read policy with a lot of law mentions.

DA's + CP's

Good with DAs, CPs, any combination. Your CP should have a clear net benefit (internal or external) by the 1NC. I don’t love CPs with tons of planks, especially because I usually forget what a lot of those planks were by the block. If you read 10 off, I am going to feel bad for the aff.

K vs policy affs

links are super important-- make inround links and true links, impact them out, and explain why they turn case. Individual links on the K are like mini disadvantages to the aff. Specific links are important, state bad links are probably not the smartest if thats the only thing you have. Explain your links-- explain why links of omissions are bad if your the affirmative

Alts are often neglected in K v Policy rounds, plz explain why your alternative solves the K-- explain your alts.

Framing – if you’re going for util arguments, I am probably persuaded more by avoiding mass biological extinction being good to the extent that people can make their own choice about their own value to life rather than just preserving future generations.

Theory

Prefer spending some time sitting on these arguments rather than just one-liners i.e. “severance is a voter” or “no perms in a method debate”. Explain why I should care-- dont just say buzzwords.

(addie lowenstein inspired paradigm)

Hi Im Noah I did policy debate for 4 years at Calvert Hall

email: noahiydebate@gmail.com

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

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.

Hi! My name is Hannah. 3rd year debater at Mamaroneck

Email: hannahmehler26@gmail.com

-Tech > Truth

-clash is good

-Run the states CP

-Flow

-don’t be mean to your partner or opponents

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.

He/Him

This will mainly be about policy so if I'm judging you in some other format be mindful of that.

Currently a 2N at Mamaroneck High School

You can call me Ben

Yes email chain: benm11020[at]gmail[dot]com

Absolutely no violent speech (racism, homophobia, etc.)

What you should do

• Endorse clash and education (the neg strat shouldn't be reading 12 off and going for whatever the 2AC drops)
• Give a roadmap before each speech (I just need the name of each piece of paper. A roadmap is not the order of arguments within each flow. Do this → "The order is econ da, the K, T, adv 1")
• Signpost
• Write my ballot for me at the top of the 2NR/2AR
• Impact turn anything and everything possible (except anything offensive obv)

What you shouldn't do

• Be mean to your opponents or to your partner
• Steal prep (you should only be touching your computer if a timer is running or you're sending an email. Talking about debate to your partner counts as prep)
• Clip cards or cheat in any other way (ask if you don't know what that is)

For Higher Speaks

• Be funny in your speeches
• Show me a complete flow at the end of the round
• Make a joke about the Bengals or Tottenham
• Send emails quickly and don't waste time between speeches unnecessarily
• Show you actually know your argument in cx

Misc

• I'm pretty evenly split on most theory, but I might lean slightly neg on cp competition
• Open cross is fine
• I will say clear
• Don't forget that novice year is about learning and having fun

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

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

Email should be titled with tournament name and the team names.

I did policy debate for about 2.5 years, and right now, I am doing LD.

Open cx is fine with me.

I'll try not to insert any bias, so pretend that I'm a child and explain everything to me, tell me what I should weigh.

Know your evidence, strong analytics that tell the story of your evidence > evidence dumping.

I'm fine with speed just make sure you are clear. If you are spreading really fast I usually won't flow authors so when extending refer to the argument.

Now for the sides

Aff:

Don't ever ever drop your case. In any way shape or form. Unless you're running theory and you can explain to me the reason why you're doing that. The 2A should have line-by-line at least on the case if nothing else. The 1AR should be focused on what the neg pushed in the neg block; if they dropped it in the block, I don't think you need to spend time on it (make sure you say neg drop).

NEG:

I find that running 6+ OFFs doesn't really do anything for debate. Have a productive debate. Make sure that the link is unique and that you're offs are actually something that will happen. There needs to be an internal link chain; a story. How do we get from point A to Z. Don't pull out impacts from anywhere. I need a chain of events as to how we get to the impacts.

Arguments

DA:

Again give me a link story. Need a unique link to aff, generic links are boring but it is what it is. Aff shouldn't drop the DA, willing to evaluate "link is non unique so we don't cause impacts"

Hello! This is my first tournament judging so please take that into consideration when receiving your rfds...

Generally I don't have any preferences towards or against specific args, just don't run anything that's discriminatory and stupid and you'll be fine. Tech over truth, etc etc etc.

PLEASE time your own speeches and prep, would greatly appreciate it!!!

If you make a good joke about Jake Lee I'll give you +0.1 speaks

Tyler Prozes

MHS '25

Tech>Truth

Junior Policy Debater @ Mamaroneck High School

Email: tprozes@gmail.com

If Policy: add mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com to the email chain.

+.1 speaks if you start every speech with "The Fact of the Matter is..."

Update for MAMO!!!:

*Be Nice

*Don't waste our time.

*Extend your offense! Use the flow for stuff!

*Compare impacts.

*Use warrants, i.e specifics reasons in the cards for why your claim is true (i.e why does Climate Change cause extinction?

Policy:

Debate is a game and tech>truth so all of this is preferences. I will vote on it if you win it. Screaming 'they dropped x' will not get you anywhere. Explain that, warrant that, don't just assert that if they didn't drop it.

Case:

-2AC gets away with murder. Contest that.

-Do internal link and solvency takeouts, not just mindless impact defense.

DA:

-T/C is the way to go. Try and access it higher up on the internal link chain.

-Link probably controls the direction of uniqueness.

-I view it holistically, i.e, what are the chances we get to the terminal.

-If the DA is incomplete (I see this especially often with politics) 1AR get's new answers AND a lot of leeway.

-This is my favorite offcase though.

-Pls understand how Congress works.

K:

-Framework is a yes/no question. It will never be a wash. That is how I will start the debate.

-'Middle Ground' makes no sense because you can't compare reps and material impacts.

-Links of ommision or to the squo are probably illegitimate.

CP:

-'Process CP's bad' probably works far better as justification for the intrinsic perm.

-Just win on the perm, please.

-Normal Means competition is probably bad.

-Condo is good but neg flex is weak.

T:

-Reasonability and Competing Interps both make sense, but reasonability is defense.

-You need to explain how I should evaluate reasonability. I.e if you produce a definition from a major dictionary.

-You still need an offensive reason, i.e predictability, to win it.

-Every topic is probably neg biased.

K Aff:

-Fairness is a terminal impact.

-Clash is probably good.

-The impact turn is more strategic than the C/I.

Parli:

Don't know much about Parli so if you see this I am probably judging for a friend.

A few things:

Avoid Parli-specific Acronym's please. But if it's a broader debate term (like flow) I'm perfectly fine.

Why is there a 'grace period?'

Write my ballot. Good weighing wins rounds.

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

Jason Senders (He/Him)

Debater at Mamaroneck High School

Add to email chain:

jsen0012@gmail.com

mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

General thoughts:

Don't change your strategy based on my paradigm. I'm going to give my specific thoughts on arguments below, but just do what you do best. I'm willing to vote on almost all arguments if they are explained well, so just stick to what you do.

Tech > Truth. A dropped argument is a true argument, but there must be a clear extension of a claim, warrant, and explanation of why it matters.

Condo good, but can be convinced otherwise.

Extinction outweighs, but I can also be convinced otherwise.

Open cross ex is fine

Fairness is an impact.

When it comes to framework or topicality, I don't have a preference for which impact you go for, just make sure to explain it well.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say "clear" if you are not.

Do:

Be nice. Debate is a safe space. I won't tolerate any racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic, etc. language or actions and I will vote you down if I see it.

Flow

Line by line

Impact Calc

Properly use cross-ex. Try to set up arguments for later speeches or ask clarifying questions.

Compare warrants in evidence.

Show me that you have a strong understanding of the arguments. Give me a story about the arguments and why they matter in this debate. Great analytic > Great card. A card is nothing without a strong explanation and extension of it.

Do judge instruction in final speeches. Tell me why you won and how I should evaluate this round.

Maximize clash and education in the round

Have fun

Make jokes (Especially references to famous movies (comedies best))(Also, will take jokes about Mamaroneck debaters)(Good jokes will be rewarded with a boost in speaks)

Don't:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Make sexism/racism/ableism/homophobia, etc. good arguments

Only extend the tag of a card

Talk over your partner

Specific thoughts:

Policy Affs:

You have 8 minutes of 1AC offense. Use it to your advantage. Present to me good well-researched evidence. Have specific solvency evidence and explain to me how the plan solves your impacts. Specific impact scenarios are better than generic impact scenarios and it is a lot easier to win probability with specific scenarios. Also, please do not read an EXCESSIVELY vague plan text. I think that on the neg reading a lot of defense on case is a smart and underutilized strats. I also love to see case/impact turns.

K Aff:

I used to strongly dislike K affs, however, I'm starting to come around on them. While I would still definitely prefer to judge a policy round, I'm fine judging a K aff round. For K affs just do whatever you do best. Since you don't have a plan text, I prefer it when teams have an advocacy statement but am still willing to vote for K affs without them. Although I am starting to come around to them, I still naturally find myself leaning neg toward them. For the neg, going for framework is always a good option. Fairness is an impact. I'm willing to vote for almost all impacts on fairness, so don't narrow down the impact debate according to my preferences. I feel like the Cap K and Heg DA are underutilized against K affs. Most of the time, they are just tossed in the 1NC, but I like when teams mix it up and go for one of these in the 2NR.

Topicality:

I love a good topicality debate. If you do not have a strong topicality argument or can't explain it well, then don't go for it because I'm probably not going to vote for it. On the neg please give me a case list and an in-depth explanation of your impacts and why they matter. Tell me why your interpretation is best and the model that it sets for debate. Fairness is an impact.

Counterplans:

I love counterplans. Advantage counterplans can be lots of fun to go for. If you are reading an advantage counterplan you must have a solvency advocate for each plank somewhere in the debate for me to even consider whether the counterplan actually solves that impact. New solvency evidence in the block for planks justifies new 1AR answers. I enjoy most advantage counterplans, I find them simple and pretty effective. I love well thought-out process cps with aff-specific solvency evidence. Show me a creative way that the aff can be implemented and why this way is better than the aff's method. I won't judge kick unless instructed to starting in the block. If the 2NR says judge kick and the block didn't mention it then I'm not going to do it.

Disads:

I love disads. Whether it is a generic disad or creative aff-specific disads, I love them. Specifically, love politics DAs. It's unfortunate that there are such few good disads on the NATO topic, but I would love to see a great disad in a round that I am judging. Please explain to me the story of the disad and break down all parts of the disad for me (UQ, link, I/L, and impact). Also, do impact calc on it. It's also great to use a disad that has impacts that turn case.

Kritiks:

Generally dislike, except for Cap, Security, and IR. Postmodernism Ks like Baudrillard and Psycho are okay, but I don't love those either. For neg, have specific unique links to the aff. If you have a competitive, and solvent alt that will definitely help you with winning the K. Also, try to win root cause and/or turns case claims. Normally, I lean aff on kritiks and am willing to let the aff weigh the consequences of their plan, however, I can be convinced otherwise.

Theory:

I'm willing to vote on most theory as long as it's an actual theory argument coherently extended throughout. For example, I will definitely vote on condo, but don't go for severance perm is a reason to reject the team when the perm is perm do both, at most, it might be a reason to reject the argument. Do line by line on the theory debate, it will make it much better and make it significantly easier for me to side with you.

Lean neg: agent CPs, advantage CPs, PICs, CPs recut from aff ev, process CPs with an aff-specific solvency advocate, plan vagueness, condo (normally up to 2-3, but can be convinced otherwise)

Lean aff: international fiat, utopian fiat, epistemic fiat, kicking planks, 2NC CPs, CPs with no solvency advocate, CPs that only compete textually, ASPEC.

Paradigms I mainly agree with: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Eleni Orfanos, Billy Blechman, Ian Poe

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

she/her

add my email to the chain:

caitlinsolis6@gmail.com

Hi to all debaters I’m judging, I’m Dewayne Stephenson (just refer to me as judge in the debate). I’m fine with any argument so long as it is not discriminatory.

NO HOMOPHOBIA/SEXISM/RACISM/DISCRIMINATION

Tech > truth

Make the debate organized for me, it makes it easier to vote for you and you’ll get higher speaks. Spreading is ok, but if your spreading is unclear, I’ll say clear once, and if you’re still unclear, I will stop flowing your speech

I will vote on impact calc/clash 100% of the time

HAVE FUN!!

My email is stephensd@bxscience.edu.

hi!

my name is mikey, i'm a 3rd year debater at mamaroneck hs (competed in varsity for two years) - i use they/them pronouns

in my opinion, the most important thing about debate is having fun. please don't be mean to the other team or your partner (it will hurt your speaks). just try to engage in the debate and enjoy the activity!

in-round hate (bigotry, racism, transphobia) will not be tolerated - your speaks will be docked and i will tell your coach

please tell me how to decide the round in the 2NR/2AR - it's critical that you explain on what and why i should be voting - also, explain how i should be evaluating, especially for T, K, or theory

include me on the email chain! my email is mikeysdebate@gmail.com

try to be clear - i will say clear but if you aren't, don't expect me to be flowing your arguments

in cross - open cross (when either debater can ask/answer questions) is ok as long as you are respectful of your partner / the other team

i will vote on anything as long as i know why i'm voting on it

please extend warrants and link chains - don't just say they conceded blah blah blah you still have to extend why that matters

being funny helps your speaker points! but the most important thing when it comes to speaks is clarity and thoughtfulness, both in spreading and the actual arguments you're making

if you have any argument-specific questions just ask me

Sanjana Tata (she/her)

Add me to the email chain - sanjanatata7@gmail.com

2N - 3rd year at Mamaroneck High School

2 years at University of Michigan Summer Debate Institute

Top Level (short)

I hate k affs. Don't read one in front of me.

You can go for a k in front of me; I went for one all of last year.

+.2 speaks if you open source and tell me about it. Make fun of Jake Lee in your speech or cross x = +.4 speaks

Debate case - very under utilized and a good thing to deploy that neither side of the debate often takes advantage of

My judging philosophy largely aligns with Rafael Pierry's - read his and you will know everything else you need to know,

Debate is largely about confidence - sound like you are winning and you already have 50%. Having a good ethos moment in the 2nr/2ar where you just state the top level decision you think I should make for you largely increases your chances of winning.

Be clear, be smart, be good. Have fun.

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.

email - avelikov2006@gmail.com

More likely to vote on policy than K.

Make sure CP has a net benefit that is well hashed out. Directly tell me why the CP solves better/solves for more than the aff, not just that it solves the aff too.

Please establish a clear story for me to vote on with good impact calc considering not just your arguments but how they stack up against the other team's.

Giving good roadmaps and directing me across flows throughout your speech will improve your speaks.

Include a picture of an adorable bear or turtle in the email chain and you'll get +0.1 points.

A good recipe for some sort of food will get you +0.2 points.

please add me to the email chain: kayleighwishner@gmail.com

Varsity debater at Mamaroneck

she/they

don't be mean or offensive

be nice, respectful, and have fun!

My judging opinions:

I have debated most policy arguments but that doesn't mean I wont vote on a K/K aff I think those are really interesting

Clarity>speed but spreading is fine

I will not vote on any "death good" type arguments

cross x is a really important part of the debate (especially of the 1ac/1nc) so good cross x answers/questions could bring up speaker points

Condo is a voter if you make it clear that it is, one sentence in the 1ar and 2ar doesn't make it a voting issue

and obviously don't clip cards or cheat

If you make a pun/joke about a horror movie you get +0.1 speaks

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