Kaitlin Algeo

4th year debater at Marist School

she/her

yes, add me to email chains - kaitlinalgeo25@marist.com

Turn on your camera.

You need to read and defend a plan in front of me.

Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponent's arguments

Limited K knowledge - prefer CP/DA debates.

Evan Arena- Class of 2026

Email for email chains or questions: evanarena26@marist.com

Current Debater- Marist School Varsity Debater

Policy Debate

I went to Georgetown camp this summer. I have knowledge of the topic.

Overall, I like technically clean debating. Tell me where to flow, and I'll flow it there. Tell me in your rebuttals what I'm voting on.

Speed is fine, but be clear. Especially online, it isn't always easy to understand people so keep that in mind. Analytics need to be slower than cards.

Use all of CX if you can, end a speech, or CX if you're out of things to say. I think it's more strategic to concede 20 seconds than to let your opponents prep for that time. Try to use all of your speech time. It doesn't look good when you are just standing there. Make something up. Be nice in CX.

CPs: CPs need to be competitive. For condo, I usually don't vote unless it is extreme. 1-3 off case I usually stand towards condo good, but you can always win that it is bad. You need to make me believe that it is bad or good.

DA: Not really much to say. Link, UQ. Win it, make it make sense.

Order matters. Put your offense first. 2AR and 2NR: Slim down your arguments. Start with your strongest argument and tell me why you should win. Make it clear.

Casey Czerniawski

3rd-year debater at Marist School

she/her

Yes, add me to email chains - caseyczerniawski25@marist.com

You need to read and defend a plan in front of me.

Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponent's arguments (magnitude/probability/timeframe.)

Limited K knowledge - prefer CP/DA debates.

Please do a road map so I can follow on my flow and label your arguments.

Don't ask loaded (rhetorical) questions in CX, it's pretty much pointless, don't be that person-just rephrase the question.

Don't clip cards or steal prep - I understand accidents happen, but I (usually) time your prep and speeches, so please be aware.

This should be implied, but PLEASE time your own speeches.

Flowing is advised-you can extend your arguments better for later speeches.

Give roadmaps and signpost for good speaks (tell me the order of your arguments/when you're moving to a new tagline say AND)

Please refer toAbby Schirmer's Paradigm if you have any more questions.

Anna Jane Harben - Fourth Year Debater for Woodward (AJ is also fine)

Pronouns - She/her

Please put me on the email chain 25aharben@woodward.edu

I've been to camp so I have pretty good topic knowledge.

Main things to remember about debate:

1. Be nice — there is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive
2. Argument clash — it's important that your arguments interact with other arguments in the debate and that you support your claims with warrants
3. Line by line is essential — it makes it much easier to follow the debate when you have clear line by line
4. Be clear — speaking fast is great until no one can understand you. If you're not clear its better to slow down
5. Please ask me questions that's the only way to learn!

Use CX time to your advantage. It's extra speech time for you and a place to set up your strategy for the rest of the debate

Hey y’all! I am a junior at Marist School. Please add me to the email chain: michellelee26@marist.com

misc

- Please time your prep time and speeches please! While I do time speeches, don't count on me for keeping track of prep time. I will automatically start your timer on your first word; if a speech goes on for more than 5 seconds over, I will say something.

- Tag teaming is fine with me - it gets problematic with me when your partner takes over the majority of CX. Please use your CX to show what you know!

- Signpost please! Simple things as stating "next" or "and" when moving from evidence to evidence or argument to argument will boost your speaker points and make it easier for me to get your arguments. On a similar note, please give a roadmap before starting your speech, but normally I'll ask for one if it hasn't been provided yet. It's fine if you don't follow your roadmap, but please signpost or else it will make it harder for me to get arguments down on my flow.

- Since this topic is relatively new, it's understandable to me if you don't know complex jargon. However, you should still be able to answer questions sustainably in CX - it will be very clear to me if you don't know your aff/off case positions. Citing authors in CX is also very impressive, and I encourage y'all to try to extend specific warrants from your evidence.

- Flow speeches. It will help you to better understand what the other team is saying. If you are planning to ask the other team about a piece of evidence, make sure they have read it in their speech.

- If you need to mark cards, please do so completely ("mark the card at (x)"). Also, make sure to mark your own speech doc.

- Don't be mean. This should go without saying.

content wise (please bear in mind that while these are my general ideas, I can be convinced otherwise!!)

- Tech over truth.

- Impact calc and judge direction will raise your speaks and make it easier for me to evaluate the round. Please put it at the top of your final rebuttals, and that will be greatly beneficial!

- Case: please read and defend some sort of a plan in front of me - otherwise it's very easy for me to side with the neg on framework. Specific case answers and case debating is really good to see, otherwise I can be persuaded that arguments are too vague and don't apply. Big stick plans are good, but so are smaller affs.Nontraditional Ks are good with me as well, just make sure that you are within the bounds of the topic enough to give the neg ground.

- DAs: if the debate comes to case v DA, you have to have impact calc starting as early as the 2AC. This makes it so much easier to evaluate the debate and to see which impacts come first. It can get very messy without impact calc. DA turns the case is a very good argument.

- CPs: most CPs are fine with me. I think condo is good, but I can be convinced. If you want me to judge kick the counterplan I can do that, but you have to tell me. This should go without saying, but please have a NB for your counterplan. If the neg loses the CP, I can still give them the NB or whatever else they read.

- T: T is fine, but you have to have a TVA. If you're confident on T, go for it. Also, please don't hide it (especially for ASPEC). Please put it on it's own flow

- K: I'm very easy to persuade on both sides for the K - again, there has to be a good framework debate and judge instruction for me to vote for you. Please explain K jargon - if it's not your typically traditional K assume I won't know jargon. Also, please have links specific to the aff.

Most importantly, have fun!

John Masterson — Fourth-Year Debater for Woodward

25jmasterson@woodward.edu

IPR Topic Knowledge: Attended 7 week Mich Camp

Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman are my greatest influences in debate, I will probably agree with most things they agree on, here are their paradigms
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=maggie&search_last=berthiaume

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman

General

Clarity, Clash with Opponents, and Respecting the Opponent should be essential

Tech > Truth. This reaches an extent but will vote on dropped arguments if I'm given a reason why to. Truthful arguments are easier to prove.

Don't clip cards

Trick debating < Clash (However depending on the arg I will vote for it but may be more lenient towards the other team) well researched args are best

I respect good research and high-quality cards. My favorite debates to judge are well-prepped and explained specific strategies to an aff or a team that can line by line and number their arguments (Take this opinion with a grain of salt)

I’d say I’m more neg leaning on theory in general and think most theory is resolved by rejecting the argument (except Condo) but I could be convinced otherwise. I’m pretty persuaded by comparing to past topics (I would prob get references to water and NATO best but references to prior topics may require simplicity or more explanation) or justifications under interps. I think under the IP topic, neg ground might not be as terrible as most 2n’s have described it, personally almost no aff has a strong defense of why their area of IP is the best or only method or resolving whatever impact.

Feel free to ask any questions pre-round

Gabriel Morbeck

Strath Haven High School (PA) - 2014 to 2016

Emory University - 2016 to 2020

gsmorbeck28@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant coach at Emory and a part-time coach at Woodward Academy.

Please add me to the email chain!

If you're judged by me, here are the most important things for you to know:

1. I prefer affs that defend a topical plan. If they do not, I find framework arguments about fairness and limits very compelling. If you choose to not defend a plan, you have to play at least some defense on fairness/limits to make any education arguments compelling.

2. I think about debates through an offense/defense lens more than most judges. Unwilling to vote on presumption in almost every situation.

3. How I evaluate your explanation is shaped by how much quality evidence you have. I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong.

4. Tech is important, but so is developing robust positions throughout the debate. If you go for something that the other team has hardly covered or dropped, but you have barely spent any time developing it, I can't guarantee I'll vote on it.

5. Strong neg bias on condo. Generally fine with 2NC counterplans, modifying/kicking planks, etc. I do think that neg teams need to say judge kick in the 2NR for me to consider it. I don't find most other counterplan theory arguments very compelling. You're much better off winning competition arguments than saying that a whole category of counterplan doesn't belong in the debate.

6. I'm not very good at evaluating T debates against policy affs. Go for it at your own risk.

7. I love politics DAs.

8. Debate is fun! I understand everyone cares a lot about wins and losses, but I appreciate debaters who remember that they're functionally just playing a game with their friends on the weekend. I'll enjoy judging you if you enjoy being in the debate!

LD paradigm

I debated policy for 6 years so debates that look closest to policy debates are what I probably want to see. I want to see debates about substance. Plans and counterplans are great, critiques too. Please do impact calc--at least the top 30 seconds of the final rebuttals should be devoted to it.

I care about evidence. I'd rather see you read more cards to build your arguments (throughout every speech except the 2AR) than rely on spin.

I'm meh for theory. From my understanding there is generally a lower threshold for theory args in LD than in policy, so if your are making impassioned appeals to fairness I probably do not feel as cheated as you do.

In K debates--do link debating. I care more about that than framework/role of the ballot args. The strength of the link affects how I view every other arg in the debate.

Values stuff--I generally lean towards util/consequentalism when thinking about debates.

Aaly Nanji — Senior at Woodward Academy, Class of 2025
Include me on the email chain, aalynanji@gmail.com

IPR Topic Experience: DDI 4-Week Camp

My biggest influence in debate:

Maggie Berthiaume (Check her paradigm if you want)

General

Be respectful, have fun, learn from the round.

Clash >>>

Tech > Truth, and Truth > Tech (Explain dropped args with a warrant and claim, simply asserting the other team dropped an arg isn't enough)

Persuasion, use it. It can make bad arguments into good ones, and good ones into bad ones.

Clarity > Speed, if I can't hear/understand your args, I can't flow it.

Make sure your cards actually say what you want them to.

Slow down on analytics

Condo — Its good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Tanvi Pamulapati

3rd year debater, Woodward Academy

I want to be on the email chain - 25tpamulapati@woodward.edu

Good things you should do :

1. Speak clearly, prioritize clarity over speed, although both are essential.
2. Do line by line and FLOW, it's just good debating.
3. Be nice and fair throughout the round, debate is all one community (no clipping, lying about cards you read, nothing cheaty)
4. Do your best in CX to ask in depth questions, not just filler, and understand the line between confident and rude
5. Clash is good, both sides should have a clear story by the rebuttal speeches.

I'm happy to answer any questions, have fun while you debate!!

Jayden Rachal- Class of 2026

email: jaydenrachal26@marist.com

Current Debater- Marist School Varsity Debater

Policy Debate-

I went to Georgetown camp this summer and have current topic knowledge.

I like clean debating; tell me in your rebuttals why I am voting for you. Guide my flows.

Rebuttals-Put your winning argument first and have a strong impact calc. It's strategic if you are aff to kick an adv and for neg to kick an off.

Condo- Typically I lean toward Condo Good however, if you read an excessive amount of off I would understand the affs argument. Also if your aff and you miss an arg because of time, you could use that to explain why Condo is bad.

DA- I like most DAs: Make sure you extend your arguments well.

CP- Make them competitive, and theory is good.

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.