Tri State Debate League Brearley Beaver Bash
2024 — New York City, NY/US
HS Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideDavid Adelowo
he/him
I am a junior in high school. I debated policy debate for two years, but also have experience in Lincoln-Douglas, so I am familiar with how debate operates and debate lingo.
Add me on the email chain: daviddebatesphs@gmail.com
I'm ok with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear. If I have to say "clear" more than twice, I'll deck your speaks.
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 if 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.
As a former president of my high school debate club, I possess four years of experience in policy debate and an additional year in parliamentary debate. I view debate as a vital platform for critical thinking and intellectual engagement, and I strive to cultivate an environment that encourages thoughtful exploration of complex issues.
In my role as a judge, I emphasize the strength and substance of the arguments presented. I value well-researched evidence and logical reasoning, and I encourage debaters to highlight their strongest points rather than attempting to counter every argument from the opposition. By focusing on their key strengths, debaters can construct a more compelling narrative and enhance their overall comprehension of the topic.
Clarity and organization are paramount in effective debate. I expect participants to present their arguments in a logical and coherent manner, utilizing clear signposting to facilitate my understanding of their ideas. A focus on key points not only strengthens their overall presentation but also enhances their persuasive impact.
Finally, the manner of delivery is crucial. I appreciate confident speakers who engage their audience effectively and present with assurance. By concentrating on their primary arguments, debaters can engage thoughtfully with opposing views.
My philosophy of debating centers on fostering critical thinking through respectful engagement, emphasizing the strength of well-researched arguments while encouraging participants to explore complex issues thoughtfully.
Email chain: newscifb@gmail.com
Don’t be offensive
No racism
No sexism
No Homophobia
No Xenophobia
etc
Cool with all arguments as long as they’re explained well
EXPLAIN THE LINKS TO ALL ARGUMENTS
If I dont understand the K, I’m not voting on it
Signpost: Explicitly name the argument you’re referring back to
Please BE CLEAR
don’t spread if you can’t
Andrew Choi (he/him)
*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*
Email: achoi07650@gmail.com
FOR LD:
- I'm generally fine with anything/any speed, but you will need to slow on impromptu analytics/weighing
- do not presume I know anything (includes phil, K's, theory, etc.)
- being out of the scene outside of occasionally helping w/ judging, the less knowledgeable I get about shells that a lot of debaters would assume an experienced judge would "intuitively" know, so please explain everything in full
1. Tech v. Truth
- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech
- always assume I don't know anything
- generally not an interventionist judge
- just b/c I mostly default to tech doesn't mean that if truth is blatantly ignored I won't consider it
2. Positions (doesn't matter for PF)
As a general rule and maybe this is because I'm becoming a boomer but I would rather judge a debate about the topic at hand rather than a debate about debate.
Disads - cool
Counterplans - cool
Kritiks - cool
Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)
Topicality - will rarely vote on it
3. Speed + Evidence
- any speed is fine but please if it's public forum shouldn't be too fast
- I probably won't call cards but you never know
- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence
4. Speaks
- will give high speaks for nice round :)
- if y'all chill expect 28+
- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25
5. Basic stuff
- please weigh
- Do not be problematic within rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, the win is not worth turning into a terrible person.
- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.
6. Digital stuff
- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.
- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be worried if I ask you to repeat something my ears are getting old :).
- Say if you need me to accommodate something. It may always sound corny but a lot of people forget that the priority should always be students so know that I truly have your best interest in mind.
Game player paradigm
My overall judgement is placed less on absolute Truth as much as the truth or rationality of the argument. Thus, students are allowed to agree on the metrics I should judge the debate, as debate is overall and excercise for debaters. In the case of disagree, I expect each side to argue for why their evaluation metric is better. Unless players state argue a priori kritiks, stock issues are expected.
Example: if the affirmative argues that the US banning candy would bring an absolute net benefit irrelevant of its efficacy as a policy and the negative agrees the round should be judged purely on the hypothetical of a perfectly executed policy, not on practicality or realistic expectation, I will vote in affirmation independent of any additional compelling arguments.
My personal views hold less valuable in comparison to the values proposed by each debaters, however, I don’t believe in absolutely objectivity, so nihilistic arguments such as: “human life has no inherent value” will necessarily be more difficult to win with.
Anuj Jain - Edgemont '22 (LD) / NYU '26 (Policy) - ajdebateld@gmail.com
LD/Policy: Debate is for the debaters so it's better if I adapt to you than if you adapt to me. Do what you want but comparative weighing, framing, and warranted judge instruction about what you are ahead on and why it matters at the top of your last speech, is paramount to getting a decision you want. The top section of your final speech should tell me what you are winning, why you are winning it, and why it matters to me or the ballot. I also don't know anything about the topic you are debating regardless of format so explain it to me like I'm five years old. You should respect your opponent(s) and engage in good faith (i.e. disclose, send analytics, be decent in cross-ex). My favorite types of debate are Plan vs Ks, and I have minimal experience in Policy v Policy rounds and K v K rounds. Theory is strategic but I am unlikely to vote on it unless it is either dropped, or the entire final speech is committed to it. While I could be persuaded to evaluate tricks/spikes, I think a simple "tricks are for kids" or "reject non-resolutional theory" is persuasive.
My 2NRs in college have been exclusively Set Col, Cap or T-USFG. I read plans in high school, and my 2A reads weird sci-fi stuff.
PF/BQ: I don't know anything about this topic. I also didn't compete in PF, but I've judged it a fair amount now. You should send your opponents your case right before your speech, and failing to do so will end in an auto-loss. Otherwise, I generally find 90% of PF rounds are resolved through 'who did the best comparative weighing'.
Updated September 2024
Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. Myemail is charlesdebate7@gmail.com
I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.
This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.
Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.
Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland
Top Level
Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most K authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I appreciate good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.
While I am a strong believer that judges should not categorically prevent debaters from reading certain styles of arguments, there are certain behaviors and norms that I believe should be modeled in the debate space:
1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.
2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.
3] When it comes to speech docs, I think about the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.
4] Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have high expectations for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its expectations this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.
-----------
Misc. notes:
- I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
- Put your analytics in the speech doc!
- Trigger warnings are important
- CX and prep ends as soon as the timer beeps! Time yourself.
- Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!
Public Forum
In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating, and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.
All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.
RVI’s are not a thing in PF. Ideally, theory isn’t either.
I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Don’t do it.
Lincoln-Douglas
LD is the event that I’m most comfortable judging – most of my coaching and judging experience is in this event.
I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default.
My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
David Levin
he/him/his
Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com
Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll; Collegiate
Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19
----------
Top-Level Expectations:
-All evidence read will be in cut cards and sent before its respective speech (marked documents afterward is ok)
-Debaters will not clip cards or otherwise misrepresent evidence (paraphrasing is a voting issue)
-Debaters will treat their opponents, judge(s), room and partner with decency
-DEBATERS WILL BE READY TO START THE ROUND ON TIME
-Debaters will time themselves
-Google Docs speech documents must be downloadable
----------
Policy:
-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.
-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.
-I'm happy to vote for procedural fairness.
-I'm equally happy to vote for an impact turn against procedural fairness.
-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.
-I thoroughly enjoy a good T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").
-Quality over quantity for off-case. Kick any conditional/dispositional off you don't go for. Judge-kick from neg justifies Reasonability from aff -- both are calls for intervention, but at least reasonability is an argument, rather than the absence of an argument.
-Generally, no RVIs.
-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!
-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.
-Perms are tests of competition.
-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean its always a good argument)
-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.
-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!
----------
Lincoln Douglas:
I'm beginning to judge more LD, but I have >10 years of experience with Policy and PF debate. As such, I'll be judging like this is a 1v1 policy round. Speed is usually fine, but please slow down on analytics and shells, especially if they aren't in the doc (I'd prefer them to be in the doc). I'll clear you if you're too fast, without penalty to your speaker points if you're responsive. Flex prep annoys me but I'll allow it. For the sake of all things holy, SIGNPOST (that includes giving me an actual pause to go to the next flow). If my flow is a mess, my RFD will be a mess. Help me help you.
Thoughts on arguments:
-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new.
-Counterplans and Perms - Process counterplans are broadly legitimate. I default to aff fiat being immediate, but I'd be interested to see fiat/implementation contested. Perms are tests of competition.
-T - I love voting on T, both for it and against it. This is especially true of T against policy affs (competing interps on words other than "Resolved:" or "USFG"). I'm less familiar with Nebel/Whole Res T, but I'm willing to evaluate it if warranted well. Education > Fairness in most cases.
-Affs that don't defend the resolution - I have no face value objections to these. That said, I've found method testing to be the most compelling negative argument for SSD. Why is your injunction against the "norm" preferable?
----------
Public Forum:
-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud
-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot
-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument
-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts
-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo
-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting
-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you
-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses
----------
This is my first time judging a high school debate round, but I have experience in public speaking and structured argumentation through participating in mock trial and Model UN. I value clear, persuasive arguments backed by solid evidence, and I appreciate when debaters engage effectively with their opponent’s case while maintaining a respectful tone.
Please speak clearly and at a moderate pace to ensure I can follow your reasoning. I'm looking for well-organized arguments that are logically sound and supported by evidence. In the final rebuttals, be sure to explain why your case outweighs your opponent’s.
In addition to clarity, I also value flexibility in responding to your opponent's arguments. I appreciate when debaters adjust their strategy based on the flow of the debate and directly address the most significant points from the other side rather than sticking rigidly to pre-prepared material. This shows strong critical thinking skills and adaptability.
My focus will be on the overall clarity, the strength of the arguments, how well you engage with your opponent’s points, and how flexible you are in responding to unexpected challenges. I aim to provide fair and constructive feedback that will help both sides grow as debaters. Let’s keep the round focused on learning, reasoning, and effective communication.
I electronically write my notes, if any of the competitors would like them send me an email! Sam9611@nyu.edu
Heyy, I'm Samuel Medina (He/him), and I hope you are having a good day.
Add me to the email chain
Email:samumedinac@gmail.com.
General/Important
I DO NOT KEEP UP WITH THE DEBATE CIRCUIT SO ASSUME I KNOW NOTHING ABT THE TOPIC
(If you just vomit terms on me I promise you I don't think you look intelligent, ill assume you cant read bc its bolded and at the top of my paradigm, using fancy terms to win off vibes will just get you like idk 27.35 speaks and me just copying and pasting this exact same parenthesis at the top your comments but making sure its bolded so maybe you can find it this time, I'm semi-joking)
I did a little bit of PF and CX in HS, so I am not a total disaster at judging; however, I never really mastered flowing, so make sure you read the tag of your cards SLOWER so I can follow along.
Speed:
For CX/LD maybe 80% speed and for PF don't go above 70%. (Also, if you clip cards, I will notice, and I'll throw cards out if I notice you do this repeatedly; just say "Cut the card at x" and that's enough for me)
If I notice your evidence doesn't say what you claim it does, I'll throw the card out; if there are many cards, I'll probably just draft an email in the middle of the round and send it to the tournament directors, and then I'll play Tetris for the time remaining.
If you try to give me new arguments post-second crossfire, I'll make sure I look like I'm flowing, but in reality, I'm just doodling bc I will not count it.
Truth --------X----Tech
If both sides are Okay with it, we can skip Grand Cross and just make it prep time. Nothing yall say during it (With the expectation of messed up stuff) will affect my ballot, so might as well skip it
I will vote neg on presumption
Impact calc, and in it, please include how I should evaluate the round and why I should evaluate it in that specific way.
///////////////////
Specifics:
Ks:
If you are in pf and read a K I think that's dope and if you don't agree, cope (get better at debate kid)
I emphasize a good L/IL chain more than the alt, tbh for me the alt is just rejecting the squo and that's enough for me.
I'm familiar with some anti-blackness, set col, cap; however, I'm always excited to learn more. That being said, you will need to explain the L/IL thoroughly, just imagine you are teaching it to your parents, and if you dont think you can explain it at an extremely basic level, dont read it, odds are you dont know what you are even reading and ill make fun of you internally from just stealing cards from your teammates or open ev LOL
DAs:
Must have Claim, warrant, Impact.
You probably have swayed my ballot if you impact calc and your opponents don't.
In terms of impacts, if you read Nuke War, I'll silently sigh as I write the extinction impact on my flowing sheet, as i prepare myself listen for the 100th time "even if its 1% extinction blah blah blah" just read me something else. If not I'll give you the minor inconvenience of deducting 0.1 speaks for lack of creativity.
CPs:
All cp are real as long as they solve
Condo is good (unless you read like 8 cp, in which case you are about to get clowned on if your opponents read theory)
idk who needs to hear this, but there is no "cp" on PF, so if you read one, I'll just look confused bc you are providing offense to your opponents.
Topicality:
Not a lot to say here; defend it and if you dont that's an instat round ender, if you are topical don't lose the round just bc you didn't define "substantial."
Theory:
I love me a good theory debate as I think it showcases the skills of a debater the best
PF you can read Theory and i encourage to do so.
Disclosure is good.
Honestly, explain your arguments thoroughly, be explicit about how the opponents are violating debate rules and how it's bad for debate.
If you give me judge instructions like vote aff bc neg is wearing shoes, you better have the most beautiful cards or be the most charming individual in the tri-state area, otherwise dont bother I wont vote on your "arg"
Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round and any questions about the round after I'm done submitting my ballot. I was in your position not too long ago, so I'll help anyone who asks.
Hi, I’m Lily! I am a junior at NYU and have been debating since 2017. In high school I debated LD and CX nationally- I typically read more performance/allegory based K’s from a variety of literature bases (ex: Wilderson, Baudrillard) as well as heavily analytic/narrative based arguments. Currently, I debate for NYU’s CX team where I essentially have done the same.
Ranking for K comfort level:
1- performance
2- security, cap, academy (and all adjacent arguments)
3- pomo
Ranking for overall comfort level:
1- k (and trad ig?)
2- theory
3- larp
4- phil
*Goes without saying, but, racism/sexism/homophobia will be reflected in how I adjudicate the round, and I will intervene to stop a round if it is at a point where it so egregious that it becomes necessary.
*It is important to me that arguments are multi-layered. I am more favorable to multi-directional offense against Ks. My favorite rounds and arguments are the ones that are less obvious- they are usually more strategic, too.
*You will get high speaks if you are confident and if you layer your speeches well. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you, and where I should put arguments on the flow. I am favorable to good overviews and tactful line by line.
Nathaniel.Sasenarine@Icloud.com
I am new to Public Forum. Please ensure your explanations of the arguments are clear and help inform my decisions. Additionally, impact analyses are always appreciated.
I've been involved in debate for around 7 years, competing in Public Forum, Policy, and Parliamentary debate across local and national circuits. I am currently competing with both the CEDA and Parliamentary teams at NYU. Speed is not an issue for me. However, never sacrifice clarity for speed. Please provide a clear roadmap before (Policy) and during your speech. Overall, run anything you want just don't forget to extend your arguments through to the end of the flow.
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.)