Tabroom.com

The Newark Invitational 2025

2025 — Newark, NJ/US

LD Varsity Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Mattew Anazco Harrison

Logan Aviles Ridge High School

Saied Beckford Ridge High School

Last changed on Tue July 30, 2024 at 9:01 AM EST

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Frasat Chaudhry Horace Greeley HS

Elizabeth Elliott Greenhill School

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 2:35 AM CST

Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27

Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD

send docs - speech drop/file share/elizabethelliottdebate@gmail.com

---

Be a decent human being.

To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names. I never flow from the doc. However, I will randomly choose to follow along in the doc for clipping. You will like my decision more if you slow down.

Tech >>> truth, but your speaks are mine. I will do my best to decide the debate to minimize intervention. Judge instruction helps a lot with deciding in your favor.

Post-rounding is good. If I make a decision you disagree with, please ask questions. It makes the activity better and forces judges to pay attention.

Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else (preferably a coach) is cc'ed for safety reasons).

You can insert rehighlightings of cards and perm texts.

Arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact. I will only vote on complete arguments, I believe this to be as true for disadvantages as much as I do for one-line blips.

I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models which are yes/no questions.

I protect the 2NR more than the average judge, AFF teams should make sure to either justify new arguments they are making or make sure they can vaguely be traced to earlier speeches (minus impact calc/ev comparison). However, if the negative reads new cards/makes brand new arguments in the 2NR, the 2AR both gets new cards and new arguments to answer the new cards. Either read complete positions that can sustain AFF responses, or take your bets against a new 2AR.

Evidence quality matters a lot, if cards are highlighted like poems, please point it out.

---

DA/Plan AFFs: Turns the DA/Case is better with carded evidence. Impact calculus/comparison matters a lot. Explain how arguments interact / what it means to win broad theoretical claims. Err on the side of overexplaining dense econ things.

CP: Have perm texts for anything other than 'do both' or 'do the cp.' I will not judge kick unless instructed to by the negative. 1AR deficits should be tied to impacts. Counterplan theory as the 'A Strat' never makes much sense to me. I would much rather see theory debates as competition debates.

K: Middle of the road in these debates. Framework debates are a question of models. I will decide the framework debate as a yes/no question and not a middle ground---this makes the framework page (regardless of which side you are on) very important in front of me. I am good for K tricks as long as they are made clear in earlier speeches.

T: Caselists matter a lot to me. Make sure you extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation. Weighing between standards usually decides these debates in front of me. I am pretty bad for 'reasonability' absent judge instruction, implicating thresholds for what offense matters, etc.

Theory: I lean negative on most forms of CP theory as a general statement but given the state of LD, I will happily vote on condo/other theory arguments if well-executed/well-developed. The more frivolous the shell, the more likely I am to look for ways to vote against you, the more sympathetic I am to reasonability, and the worse your speaks will be.

Tricks/Frivolity/Phil: I would rather not. I will vote on it, but the more confused I am the worse your speaks will be. That being said if you are a phil debater I would rather you read a phil aff then pull a random aff off the wiki - just err on the side of overexplanation. I need a higher level of explanation than most judges. Examples + the more you make me feel like I am in a K debate, the more likely you are to win. You need to go slower than you think you do...I will vote on presumption if your 1AC is unflowable.

---

Speaks: I am unpersuaded by a 30-speak spike. Ways to boost your speaks: doc organization, judge instruction, clarity, numbering, line by line, and argument innovation. I give more low-point wins than most judges, this usually stems from one of 3 issues: lack of debaters resolving arguments/judge instruction, lack of clarity/delineation between arguments, or major strategic blunders in other portions of the debate.

Debating Novices/People with Less Experience: You should do what you need to do to win the debate, but make the debate as accessible as possible ie. slow down, explain things, be nice, etc. If you are clearly ahead either go for the winning argument and sit down or have a debate your opponent could engage with. I am uninterested in hearing 6 minutes of a K that was dropped.

Online Debate: I have no preference between camera on vs. off. You should locally record speeches in the event you cut out. The less I think you are stealing prep the better.

"New AFFs" are affirmatives that have not been read by you, a teammate, your prep group, or another school. To be read as 'new,' none of the evidence in the AFF should have been read before. If evidence has been read before, the evidence should be disclosed to your opponent. Changing tags/how a card is cut does not make an affirmative new. If you break 'New' and your affirmative is not new - your speaks are capped at a 25 in prelims and I will have a very low bar for voting against you on disclosure in elims.

Ev Ethics: I would rather exist in a world where evidence ethics is not used as a case neg. If someone is reading miscut evidence and you notice it before the debate, email them about it. If there is purposeful manipulation of evidence I will happily vote on it, but making a mistake in the citation or a link not working seems to be something that you can communicate before the debate.

Nicholas Ford The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:32 AM CST

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i did ld for niceville high school in nwfl my senior year on the circuit & am currently a second-year at columbia studying comparative literature; if you are planning on applying there, feel free to ask me questions about it/ the application (ik college apps are hard lol)

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

if you have any questions email me/ reach out over fb messenger etc.

general:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them

not evaluating 30 speaks.

the way I think about safety in debate has changed over the past year. i will intervene if i believe that one or both debaters is making the round unsafe in any way, shape, or form. i believe that there is a difference between an ivi for safety (e.g., 'kant is racist, their endorsement of kant is a reason to vote them down to reject racism') and making a round unsafe (e.g., repeated misgendering, using slurs inappropriately).

i will not evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the latter.

i will evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the former.

if you feel as though a safety violation has occurred and i have not stopped the round, you need to explicitly say to me "can we stop the round, i do not feel safe" or something similar and we will proceed from there.

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine content but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks.)

be funny/clever/do something unique and interesting

easy ways to get lower speaks with me

wasting my time

being generally unstrategic

sending files as google docs/ pdf

k/performance:

identity ks are cool; non-identity ks are cool. like technical k debate; don't like you expecting me to know your lit base. lbl>>>long overviews. extremely bored by k debaters who don't do lbl work and expect to win when they don't answer key args.

theory:

no theory is friv. answer standards. do weighing. fine for the rvi. no defaults. extend paradigm issues.

trix:

totally good for tricky rounds, but i think they can get very messy very quickly. implicate things on the flow. arguments need warrants.

LARP(policy) and lay:

fine for this, but extremely bored by lay debate. be nice to novices/ debaters going to their first circuit tournament. no i wont nuke your speaks for reading theory/k/trix against a lay/novice debater.

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: not a pf judge. good for the kritik. maybe good for theory. great for trix (altho not sure what tricks exist in pf lmao)

Colton Gilbert Little Rock Central

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2024 at 7:07 AM CST

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains at cgdebate1906@gmail.com. If it’s a policy round then ALSO includelrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,If it’s an LD round then ALSO include lrc.lddocs@gmail.com please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Judge Commitments

I’m SO sick and tired of circuit-level teams/competitors providing NON-circuit/lay judges to cover their commitment. Debaters spend a LOT of time crafting/drafting arguments and deserve to come to tournaments and have judges who will work equally as hard, when it comes to evaluating debates. If I am judging you and your school did/does NOT provide quality judging then expect me to be more arbitrary in judging debates than I would normally; if you are unwilling to provide others with a quality judge experience then I have no qualms giving bad, arbitrary, or other non-flow based decisions. IF you want me to provide you with a quality judging experience then you should populate the pool with similar-minded people. If you are unsure of what constitutes non-quality judging then see the non-comprehensive list below:

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

We as a community understand that some people cannot hire out judges and maybe only their parent is available but the lack of training that they give to those parents/certain questionable ways that they teach them to judge are still not good. In short, if you want me to be the best version of myself then provide other judges who are willing to work equally as hard.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you win my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Chetan Hertzig Harrison

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 7:26 AM EST

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Zhiying Hu Cherry Hill High School East

Chandra Kandanuru Germantown Academy

Adam Kesselman Greenhill School

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 9:19 AM EST

Email: adamkesselman2024@gmail.com, greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

please make the subject of the email specific.

for example: CODE [SIDE] vs CODE [SIDE] - TOURNAMENT [DATE]

Greenhill '24

Cornell '28

Hi. Bring your best and have fun! That's all I can ask for. I like when debaters make the debate interesting with smart arguments, but what you read is UP TO YOU. Don't let anything I did during my time in debate influence what you do during yours. Literally, if you have some new kritik you want to read, Im game. You should remember, though, that the onus is on you to tell me what I need to know; judging your arguments should not require extreme amounts of pre-requisite knowledge. Same goes for all other kinds of arguments.

Other thing that I want to mention. I am new to judging and therefore more volatile because I simply do not have much experience. The way to solve this, is to do judge instruction and write my ballot. X argument was dropped so I win < X argument was not answered, it answers their Y and Z argument because ____ and means they can't go for either in their next speech. You should assume I am a blank slate moving your pieces around the board as instructed, doing as a little as possible outside of what I have been told. Each round is an opportunity to re-teach your argument.

We spend too much time doing this to just participate. So...compete. It is bad vibes if you walk into the debate thinking that you have already lost!

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. Argument quality > Argument quantity. Don't get me wrong, I will evaluate the debate if you read 7+ OFF. But, I find that many 2NRs spam 10+ cards hoping I'll put the pieces together and give you "new" arguments. Usually when this happens, the 2NR lacks judge instruction and analytical evidence comparison. If this happens, I'll be sympathetic to new 2AR arguments.

2. Impact Comparison is your friend. Collapsing, weighing your arguments vs their arguments, and giving clear judge instruction will WIN you rounds.

3. Clarity first. Speed second. Especially for ONLINE TOURNAMENTS. The number of arguments I understand > incoherent mumbling.

4.Tech > Truth. There's NO LIMIT to the content you read except that every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Some arguments are inherently easier to answer than others, of course, but I will still evaluate arguments that would be generally considered "tricks" or "fake science". Obviously worse arguments require worse responses.

5. The only situation in which I will intervene is when forced to by the tabroom or directly against hard rules, like speech times. Everything else will be evaluated by the flow, so be technical.

6. Don't over-adapt to me. Just give JUDGE INSTRUCTION and WEIGHING.

7. MISC. I am unpersuaded by a 30-speak spike. I will be unhappy in theory debates. Have perm texts for anything other than 'do both' or 'do the cp.' I will not judge kick unless instructed to by the negative.Please do link and internal link debating and not just impact comparison. I would love to hear a debate about the speed of the aff internal link vs the neg internal link. I think zero risk is possible, not sure why that is such a big deal though. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models which are yes/no questions.I think 1NC perfcons are bad, not a reason to drop the team but certainly may justify the affirmative getting to sever some of their reps/prove competition outweighs in kritik debates.You can insert rehighlightings of cards and perm texts but they must sufficiently explained. Please do not split the 2NR. I dislike flex prep, especially if it is a question about the flow. I will evaluate the debate at the end of the 2AR.

Being funny is good, being rude or condescending is not.

Chen Lu Germantown Academy

Nick Malinak The Hill School

Purvi Mavchi Lexington HS

Shruti Narayanabhatla Harrison

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 10:08 AM EST

Hi! I'm Shruti and I debated for Ridge for 4 years. In LD, I debated on both the nat circuit and the NCFL NSDA circuit, so feel free to debate however you want in front of me. I semid at NCFLS my junior year, qualled to LD toc my senior year, and placed top 14 at NSDA my junior year. In Parli, I did both West and East Coast style debate and semid at the TOC my junior year. I was also a lab leader @ NSD summer of 23 and 24, and now am an assistant coach for Harrison High School.

add me to the email chain: shrutisnbhatla@gmail.com AND harrison.debate.team@gmail.com (pls email it to both)

TLDR; I will evaluate any argument you run as long as it’s not an "ism" and is properly warranted but here's a list of what I'm most comfortable judging. Don't feel like you need to adapt your strat for me, I'd much rather you do you.

K/ performance Aff- 1

Larp/policy- 1

Theory-1

Trix- 3/4 for substantive tricks (probably a 5 if its tricks v tricks)

Phil 4/5

I'll flow at whatever speed you read and will clear if I can't understand you. ll clear you like 3 times and then I will stop flowing. Blitz through constructive speeches but I definitely appreciate some pen time for back half speeches, so slow down on things like 1AR/2NR analytics.

Minimize dead time. Send out the 1AC before start time. Don't steal prep or clip cards. Don't take forever to send docs.

Presumption and permissibility negate unless I'm told otherwise

Yes, debate is a game, but don’t be mean

Speaks are based on strategy, cx, and whether you are funny. I'll disclose speaks if you ask me to

Specifics:

Policy- I like it, it's pretty straightforward. Err on the side of over-explanation for case presses because I might not be familiar with the topic.

--Cps are great, read whatever you want and however many you want. CPs should probably have a net benefit. If you are kicking planks, tell me, I won't judge kick for you.

Theory: I’m super down to judge a good theory debate. Read whatever you want, I’ll vote on friv theory if you properly extend it. I default to no RVI and competing interps, but tell me if theory is DTD or DTA. Please weigh between standards, it makes the debate much easier to resolve. Slow down on theory analytics.

T: Have case lists and definitions. If you read grammar-based arguments, please understand them(ie you should be able to explain what the upward entailment test is if you are running it)

K affs- I LOVE well-written, topic-specific, and innovative K affs. PLEASE clearly delineate the impacts of voting aff and have a clear narrative. If you cant answer the question "what does voting aff do", I almost certainly won't be voting aff.

Ks- I'm familiar with the most common LD Ks- Cap, Afropess, Psychoanalysis, Fem, Puar, Set col, security and most POMO/high theory(D&G, Berardi, Baudy, Lacan, and Derrida). Ks NEED an overview in the 2NR to crystalize the round and to tell me where to vote. Overviews are NOT a substitute for real LBL- I will not do the work of crossiplying implicit clash from the 4 min 2NR overview onto the K page!! K tricks are cool just flag them.

Phil: I'm honestly not the best judge for dense Phil debates, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability if you tell me where to vote and signpost. I'm familiar with Kant, libertarianism, and virtue ethics but definitely errr on the side of over-explanation.

Tricks: I’ll evaluate these rounds but an argument is a claim warrant and impact. If you wanna read tricks, I’ll hold you to that same standard. I dislike "eval after x speech", stupid aprioris or condo logic but I will evaluate them. More substantial “tricky” args like skep, determinism and trivialism are much more persuasive to me than an AC that’s just spikes. Answer CX questions- we all know you know what an apriori is let’s be FR.

Parli Specific Stuff:

I ran a lot of progressive arguments on NPDL so I can and will enjoy evaluating circuit arguments. With that being said, I also did NYPDL and East Coast Parli, and am comfortable judging any style
• All offense must be extended in lor, pmr, or mo
• Defense is sticky
• arguments need to have warrants for me to evaluate them but it’s not my job to point out how good those warrants are — i’ll fully evaluate the arg if dropped
• just because a ballot is dropped doesn’t mean you auto-win, i need good weighing to convince me to vote on an off-clash ballot
• be specific and comparative in impacts, sweeping generalizations usually mean i have to intervene
• I can track spreading but pls slow down if someone clears u
• that being said if someone runs spreading consent theory i have no idea what the bright line is and neither do u
• I like a good theory debate, pls prove that the punishments are proportional to the violations, theory arguments should have good warrants too • I will protect the flow but pls still call the POO

Sonali Nicola Harrison

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 9:10 AM EST

hi! I'm Sonali (she/they)

Harrison High School '21, Cornell University '24

for speech docs: sonali.nicola@gmail.com & harrison.debate.team@gmail.com (use both pls)

free palestine also I hate util

tl;dr pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks

oct 24 note: I have judged 2 tournaments this year. go like half ur top speed or I will have no idea what's happening. I know what the topic is but not the nuances. do with this what u will

Accommodations & Accessibility

accessibility is very important to me! please tell me & ur opponent any accommodations u may need before the round. it's a good idea to share these in writing in case there is an accessibility issue in round that u want to make an arg about, but expressing them verbally is also great. PLEASE slow and clear ur opponent as many times as u need. please disclose any content areas u don't feel comfortable discussing before round (to me & ur opponent) and give content warnings

also just in general, the nicer and more accommodating u are, the better speaks you'll get. that doesn't mean let ur opponent walk all over u, but it does mean try to genuinely answer their questions & be kind. I love sass but there is a difference between being sassy and being mean :/

general notes

I graduated 3 years ago and don't coach so tournaments are my only exposure to the topic (read: idk nuances of the topic). I'm fine w speed as long as you're clear (I will slow & clear you as much as I need - I have a processing disorder). also, record your speeches for online debate (also not a bad idea to record them for in-person tbh)

stolen from Rebecca Anderson's paradigm: please stop spreading against lay opponents. It does not make me want to vote for you. probably a low-point win at best so it is not in your best interest [edited for grammar]

if u can't beat a lay opponent without spreading, u prob don't deserve to win

I pay attention to cx but don't flow it - very important for establishing links, violations, etc. I think if ur going to read any K or shell, you need to ask Qs in cx to solidify/get more links

I prob won't know the nuances of the topic so make sure to explain ur empirics and how ur theory of power functions in relation to the topic

I read mostly Ks and performance in high school so that's what I'm familiar with. I read a lot of disability (Sick Woman Theory, Spoon Theory), gender rights, and racial equity args

I don't care if ur topical or not

I love trad debate! this is my second favorite type of debate after K/Performance.

I guess I'm fine judging LARPy stuff. I do hate util & extinction scenarios but I'll vote on it if there is literally no other option (please don't make me vote on extinction). there are just so many good arguments against util & Singer was a eugenicist. LARP debates are some of the most uninspiring debates I've ever had and ur speaks prob won't be amazing if the round is j LARP

if I didn't learn anything about phil & high theory from four years of debate I promise you I will not learn about it from a 40-minute round. would not recommend reading phil & high theory in front of me. also, the majority of phil authors have expressly racist/sexist/homophobic views/their theories justify abuse of minorities, which I do not think belong in debate. I am very persuaded by reps Ks against phil authors.

the burden of proof is on u to explain ur theory to me I'm not gonna do research to understand u

don't read tricks & friv theory in front of me xoxo

I'm like 70% truth & 30% tech

ur not gonna convince me the sky is green and I won't vote on it
but following the structure of a T shell makes my life easier in terms of flowing and deciding

disclosure is prob good unless u have a good reason to not disclose. using the wiki is good unless u have a good reason not to use the wiki

Framework:

I love framework debates (NOT T-FW)! I think it's weird when the neg debater reads a FW and then doesn't engage w the aff's FW in the NC. don't do this in front of me - ur better off j conceding to the aff's FW and spending more time on different args

I also think it's a major missed opportunity to not spend a good amount of time in ur rebuttals extending ur FW and explaining 1. why ur winning FW and 2. why ur opponent has no offense under ur FW. if ur opponent is winning four neg offs that don't link to ur FW and ur winning FW, idc about the neg offs. spend time on that in ur speeches for good speaks

Specifics on Theory:

I will always prefer issues that would normally read as theory to be read as a K (with a drop the debater implication/alternative) because I have always been better at flowing and understanding Ks better than theory. but I know this is unpopular so I won't hold this against u if u don't do this.

if u are reading theory, make sure to read paradigm issues (seems obvious but you'd be surprised). I generally think reasonability and RVIs good unless u tell me otherwise. I don't think fairness exists, and I don't think debate is a game. I'd prefer if u impacted the shell to accessibility (I think that is the most important thing in debate, with education as a close second). I guess I'd vote on fairness if both sides agree that fairness is the end goal of the shell tho

stolen from Hertzig's paradigm: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it). [edited for grammar]

a note on how I judge:

I always loved affirming when I debated. I love when aff debaters just go for the aff against a bunch of neg offs and use the args in the aff to take out the neg's offense. it shows that ur aff is really well written and thought-out and also shows that u know what ur case says and how to use it. if u can do this well, ur speaks will reflect how happy I am :)

ON THE OTHER SIDE don't do this if ur neg. there is no point in reading an NC and then using the same args u j read against the AC - it's a waste of time. diversify ur args

in conclusion pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks

Rodrigo Paramo Greenhill School

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:12 AM CST

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

nd24:25/75 on whether i open speech doc during debate - will be flowing on paper and have something going on in my left ear so slowing down some may be helpful.

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell. if your opponent indicates you are going too fast for them, you should adjust. i am comfortable with debaters "slow"ing their opponents speech in good faith to increase the value of the debate.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

The following practices will significantly lower your speaker points in front of me:

any argument that i should evaluate the debate prior to the end of the 2ar

flow clarification questions
spreading or otherwise engaging in circuit norms that exclude less-experienced debaters from meaningfully participating in the debate round
reading through theory/topicality blocks at high speeds
mis-citing a piece of evidence by only reading one name on a piece with two authors, shortening a last name, etc.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (i will not vote for shells where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Rusem Paul The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 10:17 AM EST

(He/Him)

Hi. Call me Rusem. I did LD debate at Bronx Science for 4 years.

Email: paulr@bxscience.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Novice LD:

- I will evaluate framework first. Whatever framework wins will be how I evaluate offense.

- Please have extensions, signpost, and most importantly, weigh comparatively.

- Don't be ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- Have fun!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Varsity LD:

Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate any argument so long as it has a claim, warrant, impact, and isn't blatantly atrocious like racism good. I'll still vote on spark and death good.

Prefs: Overall, do what you do best and I'll try my best to adjudicate. Just because something is ranked lower should not discourage you from reading it. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this.

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 1

Tricks - 2

LARP - 2/3

K - 3

Defaults: comparative worlds, epistemic confidence, presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy different from the status quo, permissibility negates, DTD, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > IRA, T > Theory, yes 1AR theory, no judge kick.

Phil: I love it. This was the main style of debate I did in high school. I'm familiar with most frameworks (Kant, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes, Contracts, Levinas, Rawls, Plato, Rule Util). Make sure to explain your syllogism well. Don't blip past a million buzzwords. I think having a long, well-developed syllogism is better than spamming a bunch of independent reasons to prefer. Phil v Phil debates tend to be more blippy so please go slower on analytics and give top-level framing issues of the framework debate. I think examples of your/your opponent's philosophy in practice are underutilized.

Theory/T: These debates are interesting. Go slower on the interpretation text and provide a warrant for the violation, especially in topicality debates. Spec is cool. Make sure to have definitions in T debates. You should extend paradigm issues but you do not have to extend the warrants if it goes conceded. I recommend having a bright-lineif you are going for reasonability.

Tricks: These debates can be very funny. I like tricks I have never seen before, phil tricks, and weird skep warrants over dumping a bunch of a prioris and incoherency definitions. I will evaluate every speech so do not read "evaluate the debate after x speech" or "evaluate the theory debate after x speech."

LARP: I find these debates to be the most boring but I like weird counterplans that have a solvency advocate. I'll try my best but you probably do not want me judging a super technical policy debate.

Kritiks: I am most familiar with Cap, Deleuze, and security. Understand your lit base well and explain your theory of power well. Explain why your view of power/morality/the world is true and why I should care about it in the context of this resolution and/or round. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand so avoid using a lot of jargon.
I'll happily vote on a non T aff or a performance aff if it is won on the flow.

Miscellaneous:
- Be nice.
- Don't steal prep. Compiling the doc is prep. Sending is not.
- Send anything prewritten such as blocks/overviews.
- Post-rounding is fine so long as I don't find it to be rude.
- I'll disclose speaks if you ask unless tournament rules say otherwise.
- I most likely will have little to no information about the actual topic lit since I haven't kept up with debate.
- I don't flow CX except for writing down the status of advocacies.
-Don't run 30 speaks theory. I only give 30 speaks if your speeches are really perfect.

Judy Perry Lexington HS

Jose Rivera Newark Tech High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:27 AM EST

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.

Prachi Sharma Horace Greeley HS

John Smarra Waring School

Elijah Smith St. Luke's School

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:09 AM EST

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

I like judging debates where students rise to the occasion. High level debates. Who doesn't? I also respect debaters that are polite but sure of their ability to win. You can press the other team but let's be mature about this.

The passive aggressive way that debaters hold their phone timer up or 'tell' me that your opponent went 3-4 seconds "over" time is something that I'm not a fan of. I'm also not a fan of the correction of prep time by 1-2 seconds "you actually used 25 not 23 seconds". The constant tension of "are they stealing prep?' in every interaction makes debate so awful. I promise that 2 seconds didn't lose you the debate. No judge has ever said 'jeez, i was gonna vote for you but that half sentence at the timer was just so well-developed I can't". Just win.

I understand that every debate is not going to be the TOC Finals. But rise. Act like you've here to get to finals. Give 100% every round. I've had dozens of long paradigms that students ignore. This is really my one, inflexible requirement across events. We spend too much time doing this to just participate. Compete.

Fewer arguments and 1 excellent card and a slow conversation is better than 50 bad cards. I won't re-construct debates to find answers. Prefer a structured NSDA 2AR to a blitz of random stuff.

You can ask questions after a debate. If you're asking why I didn't vote on the thing you spent 3 seconds of your speech on, you have answered your own question. My rfd will be less about the line by line and more about what you can do/know next time.

Policy, PF, LD thoughts below

Policy Nov 24

condo after 4 off

explaining the function of cards in the 2AC is the best way to get ahead of the block and to make your card dump seem responsive.

yes, process cp but need a lot of explanation.

K 2NC- don't rant. Structure, warrants for turns case, line by line.

education>fair but i've voted on both.

reasons and warrants.

LD- October 24

I don't know any topic acronyms, what card is 'supposed' to win a given debate, or who is 'good'.

-No tricks/friv theory/ nonsense
-no racism/etc
-complete arguments.
-will give a 27 for being unclear. do speaking drills before the round. slow down.
-condo can be bad after the 3rd off.
good policy + K is great
traditional is great

basic phil is fine.
if you call your argument a trick it is nonsense. 20 speaks

education > fairness

PF debate:

Any evidence you plan to read in a debate I'm judging should be sent before the speech. If I want to verify that your evidence exists, I will look at it. I will reduce your speaker points if you don't do this.

Treat me like someone who doesn't know anything about debate. This is a speaking activity. Speak well, be persuasive, and convince me you are correct.

I don't want to hear any technical debates, theory, or anything that is not about the topic.

Will Trinh Millburn High School

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 4:23 PM EST

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. I qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun. I coach for Vanguard Debate and Stuyvessant while doing work for the New Haven Urban Debate League. I am moderately versed on the ins and outs of any given topic for LD. I now attend Yale University (Go Bulldogs!)

UPDATE FOR CPS

Really excited to be back judging on the west coast. While the way I judge will not change, I would appreciate if teams went for substantive positions about the topic. Please do not think my time out east makes me any more receptive to nonsense or tomfoolery you would otherwise not pull. This is the first tournament of the topic so I am very excited to see what arguments teams are cooking up. Good luck and have fun! (If you wear any holiday-related gear, remind me and +.2 speaks).

Round 1: It is 8AM. I probably woke up at 5AM to catch the BART. If you're going to hide a theory argument please be clear. I will do my best to flow it just please be clear.

Tl;dr: Tech>Truth. There is no such thing as being 100% tab. If somebody claims they are 100% tab, they are lying. I will vote for anything warranted as long it is not the seven things below but I would much rather judge substantive debates about the topic. That being said, read whatever if it has a warrant. I am tired of teams not putting their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. I have little respect for judges who won’t meet in the middle with debaters and attempt to adapt so I will always do my best to not be dogmatic.

In line with transparency:

I do not flow off speech documents nor open them until somebody asks about a piece of evidence read in a debate round or a rehighlighting has been inserted/read. I flow using Excel/Flexcel and flow top-down. I will flow author names so I do not need to call for card docs later but arguments must still be complete for me to flow them. If I am flowing on paper, that is a sign for you to slow down. If I cannot flow you I will start shouting clear up to three times before I shut down my laptop and vote the other way. I will do my best to flow full advocacy statements but will open speech docs to look at texts if instructed.

Email chain>>>

Add all when I'm in the back.

william.trinh@yale.edu

vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

stuylddebate@gmail.com

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

Feel free to ask questions to that email before or after any round/tournament!

Please format email chains properly. “Tournament Name (Year) -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code].

Example: “TOC Digital 3 2024 Round 3 AFF Southern California Debate Union RN vs NEG Heritage WT”

I do not flow from the document. I only open it to read evidence for reference during prep or CX when it might be relevant. I will not backflow.

I try to mimick Holden Bukowsky's judging and mostly agree with their takes. If you would read something in front of Holden, you can probably read it in front of me. Treat me as a slightly more fascist, but less grumpy version of them.

Most questions in debate such as link determines uniqueness/vice versa, shields link to the net benefit, etc are most likely probabilistic (though I can be persuaded some are yes/no questions). The only questions that are decisivley yes/no, are questions of models such as competition, violations, framework, etc that are forced to be evaluated as such because of the logic of debate. There is no such thing as whether the debate over the violation is a "wash."

In terms of comfortability evaluating

1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Clash rounds

2: Phil v Phil

4: "Tricky Phil"

5: Theory/Trix

Strike: Trad/Lay

In terms of what I enjoy judging
1: Policy v Policy, K v K, K Aff v T-Framework, Impact Turns v K Affs. Topicality v Policy Affs.

2: Policy v K, Phil v K, Phil v Phil, Policy v Phil.

4: Theory

5: "Tricky Phil," Trix

Strike: Trad/Lay

Clipping tags and analytics have not been, are not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge also cannot flow, you should strike them. Saying the words 'clipping tags' will result in a reverse postround.

UPDATE: Flowing appears to be a lost art. If I can flow without speech documents, then flowing while the document is right in front of you should be a piece of cake. I will cap speaks at a 27.5 if you answer arguments in the speech doc but weren't read.

You MUST take prep time or CX in order to ask questions. I have zero problem with flow clarification when it occurs on your own time and won't penalize you but I will nuke speaks if you are not running a timer when you should.

Be reasonable. If you marked cards all over the place offer to send a marked doc before CX/prep starts. You do not need to say if you are skipping a card, teams should flow. If one card was marked/skipped, for the love of god just learn to flow.

Unless I ask, assume I am fine and don't need a card doc.

Nonnegotiable

Safety first. I refuse to vote on "arguments" such as "Truth Testing/Skep takes out misgendering/racism/other objectively morally repugnant things." You can still go for "Truth Testing/Skep takes out this substantive argument (like a Kritik)" but do not expect me to vote for you if you go for "you can't vote on misgendering theory because they conceded truth testing." Be a decent human being or else expect an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Cross-Ex is good and is best used as a speech. I am fine with you prepping while asking and answering a question but you cannot say "I'll take the rest of CX as prep."

Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)

1]Evaluate the entire debate after (x speech) that is not the 2AR.

2]Ad homs/arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

3]Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, self-harm good, etc.) (Heg good and death good do not necessarily cross their barriers) The debate will end.

4]Shells that dictate what your opponent must do outside the context of a debate round/dress/you get the idea. (Disclosure is something in the round).

5]Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

6]No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. I will not vote on no 2NR I Meets or the like.

7]Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Policy Arguments

Love them. I feel most comfortable judging these debates.

Great for impact turns, CP Comp, Agenda Politics/Elections, and general NEG terrorism.

Better than average for the intrinsciness test but I still lean NEG due to the late-breaking nature of these debates (especially since the 1AR is NOT a constructive).

1AR Counter-Terrorism is super underrated. Some positions should be straight turned more often.

1NCs baiting 1ARs to read offense on one flow to allow a 2NR on another is a very effective strategy if the AFF does not catch on.

1NCs should read at least one CP Comp card.

1AR/2NR should read more cards. However, the 1AR/2NR is not a constructive speech. 2NRs do not get new impact cards unless 1AR reads impact turn... etc.

Evenly debated, I lean neg on most if not all theoretical issues but debate it out.

I think competing off of solely immediacy/certainty is silly but debate it out.

Textual Competition seems silly and so does positional competition but I am fine for 1ARs that argue the former is a necessary but insufficient burden for the negative and that positional competition isn't the worst thing in the world to preserve NEG ground.

Most permutations teams claim are intrinsic are not actually intrinsic.

Permutations should be sent in the 1AR doc with precise texts.

Permutations that aren't PDB/PDCP but are functionally legitimate do not need precise texts but the argument should be sent in the speech doc.

"Permutation do the plan and..." is fine to meet the above condition.

Kritikal Arguments

Great if you want to defend things. Terrible otherwise.

Framework matters. Leverage it more to take out aff theory/competition arguments. It is best debated about what burdens the AFF and NEG has in terms of burden of proof or rejoinder.

Middle Ground Interpretations are silly. I am best for AFF teams that go for Plan focus and NEG teams that go for interpretations that delete the plan.

Better for Fairness 2ARs than most judges. Often find it the most persuasive articulation for why the NEG should not get to lower their burden of rejoinder.

Alternative Solvency is much preferred but not always necessary. I find myself much better for NEG teams that are willing to defend things.

Ideal K 1NCs have 2-3 links (one of them being a topic link/link to the aff's mechanism), a thesis card, an alternative, and a framework interpretation.

Ideal K 2NRs have consistent stories. I think a research/pedagogy based link argument+framework+an alternative that resolves said pedagogical link argument is the best 2NR. That said, a K 2NR that is functionally an impact turn is always welcome if the aff doesn't double down.

I am often left wondering how the alternative solves the link in many debates which makes me more skeptical of framework 2NRs on research based impacts when you don't resolve your own offense.

Ideal 2ARs vs the K would be 3 minutes of Plan Focus+Extinction/OW OR impact turning the 2NR.

I am fine for the link turn+permutation strategy, it however requires robust DAs to the alternative which means going for an impact turn is usually preferable.

Topic links are incredibly underrated vs Phil Affs.

"A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning." -Holden Bukowsky

Read cards. I am skeptical of analytic link walls that lack evidence or 1AR responses to the K that are not carded.

K Affs

These Affs are fine. Cool even. I read plenty when I was a debater. Some things to note.

-Stop trying to claim solvency for stuff you can’t realistically solve. Voting affirmative will not end Israel’s genocide in Palestine. You don’t need to resolve the entirety of X structure or even X thing in debate to beat back presumption.

-Do not run away from the most surface level of right-wing propoganda. You read your aff for a reason. Use it.

T-Framework vs K Affs

I read a lot of non topical affirmatives in high school and frequently put framework in my 1NCs vs them so I’m decent for both sides.

Fairness is an impact."Hack against them" is not a very persuasive articulation of fairness. "Fairness is good because debate is a game and we have an intrinsic motivation to compete and win" is pretty sweet.

Lean negative but NEG teams cannot go for framework in LD in a convincing matter. Do better.

Identity Affs need to be more than “I am X identity now vote aff.”

Not really sure if clash is an impact.

K Affs that defend things>>>>queer overkill is bad now vote aff

Fairness>>Carded Skills Offense>>>>>>>>"Clash"

SSD and the TVA should be offensively framed.

K v K debates

Great for these debates, often my 2NRs vs K Affs.

High threshold for alt and link explanation in these debates.

Clear solvency mechanisms win debates.

Impact turns against the aff/alternative are super underrated.

Pretty bad for links of omission.

Phil Arguments

Despite being from California, I thoroughly enjoy these arguments when gone for substantivley.

I read a lot of NCs in high school and I am becoming particularly tired of evaluating arguments that devolve down to calc indicts or skep. I wouldmuch rather teams leverage their syllogism to take out arguments and explain why they can resolve ethics but the other team cannot.

Besides mainstream enlightenment authors (and the authors that write about them nowadays like Korsgaard), and perhaps Butler, assume I know little to nothing about your author. EXPLAIN please...

Huge fan of the AC/NC Strategy. Going for it well gets high speaks.

READ CARDS. Evidence matters more than the words and moralizing of a high schooler/their coach. This is particularly important in Phil v K Rounds where I find myself voting NEG because they have read evidence for their broad sweeping claims but the AFF does not.

I almost find myself always voting negative if the affirmative does not have defense to the K's thesis.

Good for plan focus/TT takes out the Kritik in Phil v K Debates.

Ideal 2AR vs the Kritik is a Framework push about reciprocal burdens OR an impact turn like ideal theory good+defense to their thesis.

Topicality

If you are a team who likes to read a lot of evidence in these debates and throw down a very technical T Debate, I am your judge. Hyper technical T debates are some of my favorite debates to judge. All I ask is everybody slow down a bit.

Precision matters more than debatebility in a vacuum. That being said, wholly unlimiting interps vs marginally more precise definitions are probably not winners. You should be comparative.

Speeches should send out Interpretation/Counter-Interpretation texts. Interpretations and Counter-Interpretations should be carded and ideally should reflect what the cards actually say. (i.e no CI: Their Interp+Our Aff with a definition that would say 20 other affs are topical).

Great for 2NRs that read cards.

Fine for Nebel-T. Speaks will be pretty low if you read off of a computer. Close it when giving the 2NR OV extension and your speaks will climb.

Terrible for reasonability. Great for 2AR pushes on precision vs arbitrary interpretations of the words "in" or the like.

Theory

Not the best judge but I will do my best.

1AR theory hedges are not very persuasive. NEG teams are better off with a robust defense of non resolution theory bad or reject the argument and not the team.

Reasonability is not very particularly persuasive. I am better for non resolution theory bad/DTA.

Will not vote for shells that dictate what debaters must wear.

Tricks

For the love of god stop putting me in these rounds. I will probably give an incoherent RFD and my brain hurts from this.

Initiating a tricks debate caps your speaks at a 28. If you are not the one to start these debates, go ham.

I have a higher threshold for warrants than your average judge on the east coast because I am a west coast judge at heart.

Things for Higher Speaks

Last tournament for a senior/some special occasion. You deserve to be celebrated.1 Off K Strategies. AC/NC strategies. 0 Off Impact Turns. Smart ADV-CP+Case Press vs bad affs. Straight turning NEG/AFF positions. T not from a file. Plans bad 2NR with semantics contextual to topic without a computer. Good 2NRs on T-Framework. Good 2NRs on Psychoanalysis/Set-Col vs K Affs.

Things for Lower Speaks:

Blitzing analytics at a million WPM with zero distinguishment.Being rude.Not flowing.Starting a tricks debate.Stealing prep (this includes asking questions about what cards weren't read without running a timer).

Misc: All of this can be changed with well-warranted argumentation. Debate it out. I don’t want to insert these defaults.

Offense/Defense Good

Topicality>ROTB/Judge Instruction (like K Framework)>Theory>Substance

Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Epistemic Confidence

Judge Kick is Good but needs a warrant

Functional Competition is sufficient

Plan Text in a Vacuum

Policy Presumption

Logic and Abritrayness outweigh

Fairness is an impact

Precision matters

TJFs are illegitimate.

Insert rehighlighting is fine if explained AND it's in the same part of the article/book whatever. If it's a different part of the article, read it.

By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity.

Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

Di Wu Mountain Lakes High School

Login to Tabroom

The Newark Invitational 2025

2025 — Newark, NJ/US

LD Varsity Paradigm List

Judges