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.

Thanks for taking the time to read this paradigm, as well as all of the other paradigms you're probably reading right now too, so let us begin, shall we?

I am a graduate of East Side High School (class of 2012) and I have been debating for four years while I was at East Side High School. I did policy debate for three years and then I did Lincoln-Douglass debate in my last year of high school because I had a lot of partner issues. I have graduated from Essex County College with my Associate's Degree in Liberal Arts (2020) and I will be attending Kean University to pursue my Bachelor's Degree in History (also in tandem with a K-12 certification) in the Spring 2023 semester; which begins in mid-January.

For Novice Debaters

-Please keep your speeches concise and organized as you make your arguments throughout the round.

-Always make sure to flow during EVERY speech and I would also suggest that you prepare your cross-ex questions in advance, prior to the cross-examination proper.

-Please be mindful of any details you may come across during the round so even if you have to ask a question while you're using your prep time (AKA "flex prep"), ask ONLY for clarification and nothing more. 

Akin to playing fighting games, sticking to the fundamentals will never steer you wrong, so as long as you know how to execute, when to execute, where to execute, and follow through. 

-give me a road map (the order of the speech) and make sure to signpost during the speech as well

-I'm ok with speed reading so as long as you are clear and concise with your arguments and how you present them to me. If you can't, then that's also fine, because debate as an activity, is all about being an effective communicator, regardless of your pace. Also, if you have time at the end of your speech, try to include a summary of the arguments you presented (AKA an under-view) so I as the judge can have a clear picture of how your arguments will not only interact with your opponent's arguments but also how your arguments can dismantle the logical appeal of said arguments and WHY I, the judge should vote for you.

As for the rest of this paradigm, here are my other preferences (for JV/Varsity Debaters)

-I ABHOR THEORY ARGUMENTS THAT ARE USED in bad faith! To clarify, when a theory argument is used to not check potential or in-round abuse, and instead is used to garner offense without context specific to the debate, it indicates to me as a judge that you're trying to circumvent the discussion instead of actually engaging the arguments being presented in the round. As a debater, you need to pay attention to how it is being deployed in the round and discern if the argument is being used in good faith or not. If not, then respond to it with direct clash and warrants to back it up.

-Topicality is another argument that I don't like but I don't totally dislike as well. Like theory, the situation has to present itself in a way that will be smart for you to run the argument. So as long as you don't drop it and try to bring it back in the later speeches for a cheap win, I will evaluate it. I do evaluate the K of topicality as well so as long as you can explain how the K of Topicality addresses topicality as a concept and why it is bad for the round. However, you still need to answer the shell thoroughly with a counter-interpretation, definition, or even if you can't, concede to their framework and use it as means to dismantle the credibility of the argument itself Arguments that you run analytically will have to have some sort of warrant or empirical evidence in order for me to truly evaluate it.

-I'm totally fine with the staple arguments (i.e. CP's and DA's). And for CP's specifically, if you're running a PIC, I'd really appreciate an overview of the pic for the sake of clarity and why the PIC is uniquely beneficial for the neg, and why a permutation would make them extra topical.

Side Note: if you plan on kicking out of any of these types of arguments, make sure to "close the door" on them appropriately so the aff doesn't gain access to any offense on those flows. By "closing the door" I refer to making the argument that explains why the idea was conditional and explaining how and why the aff ought to not gain any access to the offense they've made on those arguments by pointing out how in the neg and aff world the aff arguments wouldn't function as solvency but rather as a solvency deficit to the 1AC on those particular flows.

-Kritiks to be honest, are one of my favorite off-case arguments so as long as you know how to run it correctly. When it comes to certain kritiks that I've never heard, or really don't get, I'd appreciate it if you can give a quick explanation of how the kritik functions in the neg world if you have any time left over in your speech. When it comes to critical affs, explain how racism or other "isms" functions through a specific or myriad of social institutions functions to oppress "x" marginalized group(s) of people the 1NC claim to solve for in the kritik.

-If the aff doesn't address the K thoroughly with a permutation argument or impact turns the K, make it your priority to extend it throughout the debate. Don't let them get away with defensive/non-answer-Esque arguments that don't address the core issues the K intends to solve. However, if they do go for a permutation argument and they don't explain how and why the permutation is uniquely better than the alternative, explain why their permutation argument can't and shouldn't work, and why it is a reason I should prefer the alternative.

-when it comes to frame-work, I evaluate it in the round as the clearly established bright line that both teams ought to adhere to, purely on a mechanical level. If one team establishes the framework as the guiding point of the discussion but fails to use it as a weighing mechanism to give me an idea of how the round is supposed to play out then there's really nothing else for me to see on a macro level.

-Essentially, if it doesn't meet the bright line, they'll functionally concede to it without an explanation as to how and why they'll meet that bright line better than you. However, if the bright line is upheld and extended throughout the round as the prerequisite/starting point to whatever discussion needs to be had then I will evaluate it as the argument. By the way, I also prefer framework arguments that promote an idea that is able to be utilized in the most holistic way possible. I'm also fine with Policy Option framework arguments as well, as long as they're explained in a way that promotes practicality in terms of putting forward a systemic solution along with using it as a starting point for a discussion.

-during Cross Examination, do not stick to just one question and expect to get a different answer. If they don't answer the first time around go to the next one, and the next one and get them to concede to your side of the debate because that is what cross-ex is for and that is how it should be utilized. And please, DO NOT GO ON A RANT when you're the one asking questions. Just keep the questions concise and rapid, three minutes can go by like nothing so please use those three minutes wisely. Additionally, BODY LANGUAGE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND DURING CROSS-EX. I say this because as a judge, it shows me that you are confident and persistent in the questions that you are asking/answering.

-DO NOT SAY ANYTHING OFFENSIVE AND TRY TO JUSTIFY IT, and by offensive I mean anything that is racist, sexist, or just completely taboo. I will dock your speaker points!

aside from that, just have a good time and if you lose, that should be the least of your worries. this is literally just a learning experience that commodifies arguments to get your point across. I'm sure you have a much better life outside of this extracurricular activity...but if it is something you choose to devote yourself to on a daily basis then by all means pursue your goals and strive to be the best that you can possibly be within the activity. Don't let anyone stop you from reaching your goals, not even me!

Email: niahdebates@gmail.com

Hi humans!

About me:

My name is Zaniah. I did policy debate for four years and recently earned my B.A. in Political Science from The College of New Jersey.

I am new to judging Speech but have observed rounds before and familiarized myself with the landscape through NSDA

Policy Debate

I am open to hearing just about anything as long as you know your argument well enough to explain it as if I was a child/ be thorough. Do not run arguments that you are not comfortable with as it will lower your speaker points and just ruin the debate. Keep the flow clean! Let me know when you are moving from one flow to the next. ( K, DA, Case)

In your rebuttals, give me a clear line on how I should frame my ballot. What does having the ballot mean for you? Do not say "we are winning every flow," instead tell me what offense you specifically have on that flow that I should evaluate.

• I’m completely fine with voting on presumption. Just make a clear statement about what specifically your opponent is missing that requires me to vote that way

• You can make analytical arguments, especially if you feel there is an obvious argument to be made in the debate. I’m fine with you drawing on personal experiences or current policy issues but these should not serve as your primary evidence
• If your opponent drops an argument let me know why it is important that I evaluate the argument they dropped. “They dropped it” is not an extension.

Be sure to engage in framework throughout the round and let me know reasons to prefer yours. I will not do the work for you.

Spreading

You can speak at a moderate speed. I will not pretend that I know what you are saying. If you are not clear I will put down my pen. I will say clear three times then stop flowing.

• “Slow” means you’re going to fast
• “Clear” means you need to annunciate clearer

Speaker Points

• Use your evidence to answer arguments and do a line-by-line, you do not have to read 1000 cards that all say the same thing.
• Have structure, tell me what flow I should be putting your arguments on and what you are answering, this creates a cleaner debate.
• Ask good questions that are conclusive and give you links in CX. I am fine with open cross but please do not dominate your partner's cross examination.
• Be strategic about what you decide to go for in the 2nd rebuttal speech

Hello, most of my debate career was spent as a critical debater but I can follow and don’t mind traditional policy debate. My judging preferences are really simple just do what you do best and if you win on the flow you win the debate. Spreading is ok be sure to slow down on taglines and the arguments you really want me to evaluate at the end of the round. Don’t feel pressured to debate a certain way just be yourself and be respectful.

Lexington '25

Hey y'all, I'm Anagha (she/her), and I'm a 2A/1N at Lexington :)

Please put me on the chain: anagha.chakravarti@gmail.com

General:

1. Tech > truth

2. The most important thing is to have fun! I'm chill with almost any argument, but I will not tolerate any rudeness, racism, homophobia, etc.

3. Read what you're most comfortable with! I've read both policy and kritikal arguments, so I'm fairly confident on evaluating either.

Thoughts on debate:

The biggest takeaway is tell me why you win -- make sure that you're able to "write my ballot" in the final speeches!

Case debate:

Love --X---------------- Hate

Counterplan's:

Love ------X------------ Hate

Disads:

Love ---------X---------- Hate

Topicality

Love -X----------------- Hate

K's

Love ----X-------------- Hate

Hey, I'm Wheezy.

She/Her - 2N but I 2A'd for a while in HS

One-half of Baltimore City ES.

Email Chain: wheezyedebate@gmail.com

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions about this paradigm. I won't forward email chains, especially if I don't know you, please don't ask.

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

For Novices:

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

For everyone else :

I'm a new judge but I'm excited to develop more opinions, ask me before the round for my feelings on specifics.

Depth > Breath & Truth = Tech

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

Take tech time if you need it but don't steal time it's tacky.

I flow CX!! ---- !Signpost! ---- Speaker points start at 28.5. ---- Have Fun and Be confident.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (L1)

You should write my RFD for me in the last 2 rebuttals.

Policy v Policy: Impact calc is really cool you should do it.

• CPs: like counterplans that test the AFF and have clearly articulated well-connected net benefits. Not a HUGE fan of huge multiplank counterplans but I don’t hate advantage counterplans as a whole. I prefer intelligent uses of sufficiency framing.
• DAs: Explain the links to me well and I like them.
• I'll vote on war/extinction but be careful with Heg/China/Russia debates they get racist quickly imo. Be careful. You may win and get bad speaks or vice versa or both.
• I really enjoy well-evidenced impact-turn debates. The neg has to prove the aff is bad and this is a perfect way to do it. (+.2 speaks to the 2n if it’s about bees)
• Condo - Recently I judged a round with 8 off and only one was an advocacy. I hated judging it. 5+ condo makes condo a really easy aff win. otherwise, the abuse story has got to be clear.

Non-black debaters should not run Afropessimism in front of me.

Policy vK : I'm good with Antiblackness, Set Col, Baudrillard, Security, Cap, etc but please don't neglect the case it's my favorite part of most debates. if your K is niche just do a tad more explaining!

K v K: probably my favorite kind of debate. prove why your method is better and why theirs is harmful.

FW v K aff: Fairness is barely an impact; however, it can win the round if the answer to fairness is bad. I think if the k aff is connected to the topic it probably should've been predictable to policy teams. education is a great impact and it's how you beat bad k affs. Love impact turns on T AND Counter definitions /counter interps.

NEG: Interact with the case. Extend your standards.

AFF: Please have a good K aff.

Theory: The first speech with arg must have interp, violation, and standards/impacts, or else I won't vote on it. Please explain the abuse story well. IDK where I stand on RVIs I can probably be persuaded either way.

Credentials:

• 6 bids total.
• New York Invitational - Bronx Champion 2x
• TOC Qual x2
• TOC Semifinalist '24
• 17th Speaker TOC '24
• NCFL Champion '24

A high school social studies teacher for 20 years, I am a relatively new debate coach. I have a little experience judging Lincoln-Douglas and policy debates.

Roadmapping is helpful in making it clear what your arguments are. You should back your claims with warrants and cards from credible sources. I think it is most important that the teams respond to their opponent’s arguments. It is also important that you state your impacts clearly and that you effectively argue why your impacts matter more than your opponents’ do.

Please do not spread. I will not appreciate theory or Kritiks and would prefer that you keep debate jargon to a minimum.

She/Her

Hey y'all my name is Soda and I am a 3rd year debater and junior at Bronx Science as well as one of the current novice directors. This year I've debated pretty much exclusively with K's ranging from Glissant to Asian identity. Please put me on the email chain: khens@bxscience.edu, bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

If you're reading this, you're probably a novice so there isn't much to say besides do your best to learn and be nice to other people. Regarding my judging philosophy:

• Tech > Truth. You can run anything you want just prove your arguments well and I will vote for you.

• Clarity > Speed.

• Do not steal prep, I will try my best to keep track of everyone's prep time but a lot of the times I forget. Stealing prep is just a bad look.

• Be nice to your partner. I feel like this is just a given.

• Being assertive in cross-ex is good, being rude and aggressive in cross-ex is not cool.

• Please flow!!!

And most importantly, don't be a bad person and be homophobic, racist, or anything else that is disrespectful towards another debater's identity.

If you wanna check better paradigms check out Guy Bloom's or James Donovan's.

For PF:

I've competed with a PF debater once and generally agree with his paradigm so check out Sinan Roumie's or Kaylyn Kim's paradigm. I also generally will not know what the topic is so make sure to explain it well.

Here are my general beliefs:

• Tech > truth

• Spreading is fine with me

• I think the general evidence sharing practice in PF is odd. Please send out a doc with the cards you plan on reading in the upcoming speech.

• I dont get trix - I mean I would love to understand how they function so feel free to run them and make sure to properly impact it out

If you rec me a song or a game I'll give you + .1 points.

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.

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.

I have been debating for 3 years. I have a good understanding of the topics and the arguments. Debate how you want to. Make sure to be fair and respectful.

POLICY:

Ks

I don't have a problem with Ks. Make sure they are coherent. Telling a good story and making the links as clear as possible will help you.

DIfferent Arguments:

I don’t have a problem at all with cross-applying arguments from different flows. I am especially fond of contradictions. If you hear the opposing team contradicting themselves to try to make a point to me, point it out. It will definitely help you. If an argument on one flow makes sense on another, cross-apply it and explain how the argument makes sense for the flows.

Disadvantages:

A clear link story with consistent and extended defense and extensions will help you win on disadvantages.

Counterplans:

To win on CPs, make the net benefit clear. It’s great to have a disad that the Affirmative links to and have a counterplan where the net benefit is that you don’t link to the disad.

PICs:

If the Affirmative side doesn’t make a PICs bad argument then PICs are fine. If the Affirmative team makes a PICs bad argument, then to win on the PIC, you have to defend that PICs aren’t bad.

LD:

Framework:

Make sure to extend it as much as possible in all your speeches. Make it clear how you link to the framework and how you fit it better than your opponent.

Values:

Make sure to extend your value in the round. Make sure to explain why it is the best value for the judge to evaluate the round with. Extend all of these arguments in your speeches.

Heyo, quick background about me: I've been doing policy debate at SPHS for two years now, and did one year at Park Elementary before that.

Overall, I think debate should be fun for everyone. Be polite and a good sport. If you act overtly discriminatory, offensive, or uneducational, I'm reporting you.

Cards

If your opponent reads a card, it is your job to explain to me why I should value your evidence over theirs. I like in-depth evidence debates where we discuss evidence, its reliability, and its place in the debate space. Remember, a card must be clear, transparent, and verifiable.

Cross Ex

First things first, please don't say stuff like "I now stand for Cross Examination" whenever you finish a constructive speech. It's a big pet peeve of mine - you're in a debate, but you don't have to be that formal. Ask questions to strategically make your opponent slip up and give you an advantage (I will be flowing). However, if you need to ask a genuine clarifying question, go right ahead.

Rebuttals

In the 2AR and the 2NR, you need to be telling me why you won the debate. Explain to me what arguments you won, where your opponents fell short, and ultimately how I should evaluate everything. Weigh your opponents impacts against your own and explain how yours outweigh. Explain everything to me like I'm 5 years old.

Direct Clash

You need to do it. Debate isn’t a reading competition- you need to think critically about why your opponents arguments, for whatever reason, are bad. Give me a reason to vote for you!

If you have any questions at all, email lucassaldanadebates@gmail.com

Have fun :)

hi! this paradigm is built to be very novice-friendly to read.

i've only judged novice debate so far so when ill judge varsity ill update :)

if anything here is unclear or not specific enough don't be afraid to shoot me an email!

add me to the email chain--- nevaehsencion2156@gmail.com

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

she/they

One Half of BCC ES - donate to the Gil Sandler Fund; https://bcf.org/fund/sandl/

Wake 28'

City College 24'

Some Stuff About Me: [not updated]

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

Debate stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

Aff Specific---

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

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

Neg Specific---

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

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

TLDR:

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

excited to judge you :)

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 Im Mariama :)

bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com --> add to the chain

hidden.aspec@gmail.com --> add to the chain

Im a senior debater at Bronx Science.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth

Clarity >>>>> speed

email chain >>>>>> speech drop

i'm probably judging novice, so if its packet please only read packet args. if its open, I don't care what you run but you should only run arguments u understand, I will be annoyed if you cant explain any of your args in cx.

pls time your own prep and speeches, I forget to time but I try my best to time everyones prep/speech.

don't steal prep :((

be nice to ur partner if ur rude to ur partner im docking ur speaks .5 :)

be assertive in cx, not rude their distinct.

for more detail view guy blooms paradigm.

(ma-ree-ah-ma)

Dont read anything racist/xenephobic/sexist etc. its an auto L and the lowest speaks possible.

Free Palestine

(She/Her)

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.