Tabroom.com

High School Tournament 2 at Boston Latin Academy

2024 — Boston, MA/US

BDL Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nayelie *C*Acevedo English High School 9 rounds None

Paquita *C*Bass Boston International Newcomers Academy 9 rounds None

Cecil *C*Carey Charlestown High School 9 rounds None

Kent *C*Chen Josiah Quincy Upper School HS 9 rounds

Josie *C*Colon Codman Academy Charter School 9 rounds

Frezzella *C*Cullinane Josiah Quincy Upper School HS 9 rounds None

Caroline *C*Cusack English High School 9 rounds None

Shirla-Ann *C*Davis Edward M. Kennedy Academy For Health Careers 9 rounds None

Safi *C*Farah Boston Collegiate Charter School 9 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:23 AM EST

Hey folks! Super excited to judge you all this weekend. This is my paradigm if you don't feel like reading it I have bolded the important info!

My experience is I am a former policy debater and I have taught Public Forum

As someone who spent the majority of their time in Policy debate, I've grown accustomed to the steady pace and clear diction of policy debaters; while I am capable of understanding speed, I prefer arguments made that are slow with elegance over speedy deliver of cards, and firmly believe that repeated citation of an author does not an argument make. Given my recent experiences with people claiming they can spread (and being laughably bad at it), I've decided that it's best to err on the side of caution and simply say no spreading. (basically no speed reading)

Fewer arguments explained thoroughly are preferential over a multitude of shallow attacks that are just snippets of evidence with little debate connection. I weigh rounds on impact calculus unless otherwise directed to do so explicitly by debaters- if you wish for me to use another weighing mechanism, I expect to be told why your mechanism is preferential over impact calc and your opponent's. There's nothing I really have trouble following; I'm familiar with k's and the semantics of debate. I have no problem with unorthodox strategies or progressive argumentation.

More details, take head.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and educationof the round. If you plan to go for topicality Iwant to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the affswindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLIDalternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives negsome credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weightheir case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the affteam - Take good care of your affthroughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

Stephanie *C*Fennell Community Academy of Science and Health 9 rounds None

Kenny *C*Gilbert Somerville High School 9 rounds None

Juan *C*Gomez Margarita Muniz Academy 9 rounds None

Willie *C*Gomez Fenway High School 9 rounds None

Shannon *C*Hogan Henderson Inclusion High School 9 rounds None

Melissa *C*Howard New Mission High School 9 rounds None

Sandra *C*Joseph Edward M. Kennedy Academy For Health Careers 9 rounds None

Tyler *C*Kirk Boston Latin Academy HS 9 rounds

12/6/24

Please add me to the thread: tylerbrandonkirk@gmail.com

My name is tyler kirk, he/him/his.

Personal - I was a high school cx debater/extemp speaker in Oklahoma 2001-2004, back in the day when the NSDA was the NFL. I moved to Boston for graduate studies in religion/philosophy at Boston University in 2012. For the past 2 years I've taught at at Boston Latin Academy as a inclusion special education math and science teacher. I enjoy reading classic novels, philosophy, and poetry.

tl;dr- I'm new to judging in the past year through the Boston Debate League and NAUDL. After many years of not being involved in policy debate, and having minimal experience with K/K-Aff in 2004, I look forward to an engaging debate while I continue to learn how these arguments function.

spred OK

Run anything (best argumentation/performance wins)

I will vote on theory but there's a high burden of proof/clear explanation. There should be a true in round reason for me to vote on the theory.

explanation > jargon

I perceive the debate space as a high school activity. I expect behaviors and language to model what I would see in a classroom. Mature language in tags or cards (read or used with a purpose) is not a problem.

***********************

I am willing to listen to and am familiar with most argumentation leaning toward policy based arguments. I want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments. Speed is generally not a problem.

On conditionality, and as stated previously, I want to judge a round that has clash and substance. This being said I also believe that part of the value in debate is starting with a variety of arguments and positions, and then being able to choose which arguments to move forward with strategically. I don't have a problem with spreading as a negative strategy. At the same time there are limits here. When we get into the 6+ off arguments and it's clear that the strategy is simply to read a bunch of cards without understanding in hopes that someone will drop an argument, I would be more prone to seriously evaluate condo.

K-Aff's: I don't have personal experience running a k-aff. I understand the topicality/framework issues that the neg might use against a K-Aff. In general both teams should be clear about these arguments and where I'm going to flow them. I appreciate hearing a good k-aff and the performance aspect of the debate that often comes along with that.

K's: I love a good alternative. If you're going for the K and the alternative is reading Marxist literature...I expect that you have some favorite Marx literature that you'd like to share.

T: Topicality is an a priori voter. For this reason I also have a high bar for neg to win on topicality. I'm happy to vote on T, however I don't want to vote on T just because the aff was spread out and missed one of the 7 brightline(s) in the 1NC.

Clash: Really appreciate good clash on the flow. Nothing better than when I can follow the story on the flow and everything lines up.

Theory: I'm not that well versed in theory tbh. If you're going for theory argument(s) just be clear in explanations.

thanks!

Aurea *C*Lopez English High School 9 rounds None

Olivia *C*Lynch New Mission High School 9 rounds None

Ellen *C*McCoy Neighborhood House Charter School 9 rounds None

Greg *C*Nelson Dearborn STEM Academy HS 9 rounds None

Julio *C*Nivar Margarita Muniz Academy 9 rounds

Lorenis *C*Nova Boston International Newcomers Academy 9 rounds None

Mason *C*Peng Edward M. Kennedy Academy For Health Careers 9 rounds None

Melissa *C*Puopolo Chelsea High School 9 rounds None

Amelia *C*Ritenour Charlestown High School 9 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 3:05 PM EST

They/Them/Theirs

Add me to the email chain: queeratlibertyuniversity@gmail.com

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

David *C*Rivera Brighton High School 9 rounds None

Yaritza *C*Sanchez Boston International Newcomers Academy 9 rounds None

Katelyn *C*Shaughnessy Boston Collegiate Charter School 9 rounds None

Nely *C*Silva John D. O'Bryant School Of Mathematics And Science 9 rounds None

Phil *C*Simonini Woonsocket (BDL) 9 rounds None

Ruth *C*Suarez Everett High School 9 rounds None

Nicola *C*Sumner John D. O'Bryant School Of Mathematics And Science 9 rounds None

Ahrehon *C*Thompson Fenway High School 9 rounds

Ramon *C*Trinidad Brighton High School 9 rounds None

Erica *C*Wilson Boston Green Academy HS 9 rounds None

Anthony Aguirre English High School 9 rounds None

Valery Aldebot Ho Hire 9 rounds None

Gabriel Babuch Hire 9 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 7:26 PM EST

Current law student. Beginner judge. I think about policy as a temperature gauge with a needle that starts in the middle. If you affirm the resolution, the needle goes to the right. If you negate it, it goes to the left. If you're aff and want to win, make the needle go to the right. And vice versa for neg.

A few sticking points for me:

(1) While I prefer a medium speaking pace, I don't mind spreading (i.e., I will not ding you for spreading)––just please enunciate (speak very clearly for me!) and slow down for taglines;

(2) For aff, please don't rely on conclusory statements for why we should adopt the resolution. You have taken upon yourselves the Burden of the Policy to justify the resolution––please prove it;

(3) For neg, not typically a fan of meta/theory arguments like topicality (sorry!), particularly when they rely on normative assumptions and arguments. A case must be pretty clearly non-topical to justify a topicality arg. I care a lot more about the actual substance of the policy and the evidence presented. That said, if aff's case is genuinely non-topical, you should feel free to argue topicality;

(4) Ethics, ethics, ethics. I cannot stress enough how important being ethical and honest is in a debate, because of the limited amount of evidentiary review in which the opposing team (and I) can engage. We are counting on each other to be completely candid. If you present bad or misleading evidence, and it isn't completely clear that it is truly an accident (e.g., you commit an ethics violation), you will not win if I am judging, no matter how good every other aspect of your case is;

(5) I like organization! If you have a simple, clear, and organized case, you are much likelier to win than a team that has a supposedly sophisticated but disorganized and unclear case. That said, I am certainly not opposed to a sophisticated, complex, but clear and organized case.

(6) I strongly disfavor performance. The only lens with which I wish to judge your case is your cold evidence (plus, of course, your args, CPs, Ks, etc.). If I have no other choice, I will accept a performance arg. That said, I would rather not.

Other than that, have fun!

Nyx Brown Hire 9 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:02 AM EST

I was a Policy Debate Coach for the Margarita Muñiz Academy (MA) — both English and Spanish teams — I am currently working for the Boston Debate League. I also have debating experience as a debate en español high school debater.

My approach to judging policy debate is primarily objective. I will strive to remain neutral and impartial throughout the debate, and will base my decision solely on the merits of the arguments presented. I do not have any predetermined biases or predispositions towards any particular argument or position.

I expect both teams to engage in constructive and respectful debate. Each team should be prepared to support their claims with strong evidence and be able to respond to the other team's arguments in a thoughtful and respectful manner. I expect all participants to adhere to the established time limits and to speak clearly and coherently. I value effective communication and organization in a policy debate. Teams that are able to clearly and effectively articulate their arguments and support them with strong evidence will be more likely to earn my support.

In evaluating the arguments presented, I will consider a variety of factors, including the quality and relevance of the evidence, the strength of the logical reasoning used, and the persuasiveness of the overall argument. I will also consider the ability of each team to effectively address and refute the other team's arguments.

When evaluating theory arguments, I will assess the validity of the argument, the interpretation of the rules or norms in question, and the potential impact of the violation. I will also consider the extent to which the violation affects the fairness of the debate. If the argument is well-supported and the violation is significant, I will vote on the theory argument. However, I will also consider whether the theory argument is strategic or a tactic to gain an advantage in the debate.

When evaluating kritikal affirmative cases, I will assess the strength of the arguments presented, the coherence of the framework, and the evidence presented. I will also consider whether the affirmative case offers a viable alternative or solution to the problems identified in the critique. I expect kritikal affirmative teams to be able to effectively defend their framework and explain how it relates to the debate topic. I will evaluate the debate based on whether the affirmative team has effectively proven their case, rather than on whether I agree with their perspective or ideology.

Finally, I believe that policy debate is a valuable opportunity for students to develop critical thinking and public speaking skills. I am committed to providing constructive feedback to each team following the debate, in order to help them improve their skills and continue to grow as debaters.

Moselle Burke Hire

Last changed on Sun July 7, 2024 at 10:35 AM EST

Please add mosieburkebdl@gmail.com to the email chain.

Hello! My name is Mosie (MO-zee), he/him/his. Please use my name instead of “judge”.

Personal and professional background:

I debated for Boston Latin Academy from 2011-2017, and was part of the first team from the Boston Debate League (UDL) to break to Varsity elimination rounds on the national circuit, bid, and qualify to the TOC. I attended Haverford College (B.A. Philosophy, Statistics minor) for my undergraduate studies and Northeastern University (MBA/M.S. Accounting) for graduate school. I currently work as an accountant for a software company in the Boston area. Liv Birnstad and I co-coach the Boston Debate League’s Travel Team, which is composed of students from multiple schools within the Boston UDL.

Short Version:

-Offense-Defense.

-I have experience judging and coaching traditional policy, Kritik, and Performance styles.

-High familiarity with many literature bases for Kritiks. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you.

-I have prioritized developing my understanding of counterplan strategies and competition theory, and I am a better judge for CP/Disad strategies than I have been in previous seasons.

-All speeds OK, please prioritize your flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

***********************************************

I have judged 1 national circuit tournament and 2 local/non-circuit tournaments on the intellectual property topic. I coach and write arguments of all styles on the intellectual property topic.

***********************************************

Longer Version:

Style

Speed is fine, but it should not come at the expense of clarity or flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

I welcome rounds with numerous off-case positions, but keep in mind that I flow on paper and I need pen time.

Make my job easy! If you bury important arguments in an unclear wall of noise because you’re speeding through your blocks, I probably won’t catch them. Example: if your 2AC frontline against a core counterplan includes 4-5 uncarded arguments before you read evidence, you should read those uncarded arguments more slowly than you would read the highlighted lines in a card.

Cross-examination should be conducted intentionally and strategically. It should not be an attempt to phrase gross mischaracterizations of your opponents’ arguments as questions. Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. CX where both debaters are continuously talking at the same time is a pet peeve.

The 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and focus on condensing the debate where possible. They should not just be a list of semi-conceded arguments.

In the absence of guidance from tournament admin I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping, improper citation, and misrepresentation of evidence.

Please take steps to minimize tech delays. Set up the email chain and check your internet connection before the round start time. You should be able to reply-all and attach a document without significantly delaying the round. Putting cards in a doc before your speech is prep time.

Case

I love a robust case debate! Neg teams should aim to have a variety of arguments on each important case page. Impact defense usually isn’t sufficient to contest an advantage scenario on its own. State good usually isn’t a sufficient case answer against a K aff. Most 2NRs should spend time on the case.

I find alt cause arguments more persuasive than recutting solvency evidence to make a counterplan that addresses the alt causes.

Please extend the substance of your case arguments, instead of “dropped A1 means nuke war, case outweighs on magnitude.”

Overviews should accomplish specific goals, and if your overview does not have a purpose I would rather it not be present in your speech. If there is a lengthy overview on a flow, please tell me during your roadmap.

Topicality & Theory

I love these debates when they are intentional and clever, and I strongly dislike these debates when they’re just an exercise in reading blocks. I was a 1N who took the T page in every round, and I will appreciate your strategic concessions, decisionmaking, and tricks.

I will vote on theory arguments if you win them. If your theory argument is silly, I will find it less persuasive and it will be more difficult to win.

Kritiks

I am well-versed in most K literature frequently used in debates (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author). This has 2 important implications for K teams:

1. I will know what you’re talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory. I will reward solid understanding of theoretical nuances that are relevant to your K if you communicate them and use them strategically.

2. I will not extrapolate the details of your theory for you. It is important that you clearly communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology, so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important.

In Policy aff vs K 2NR debates, the team that wins framework will usually win the round.

Counterplans

I’ve recently made a significant effort to improve my understanding of these debates after identifying it as a weak point in my judging and coaching abilities. I have a new appreciation for competition debates, process CPs, conditionality, and the like, and I’m looking forward to judging more counterplan/disad strategies! Please slow down a little on the frontlines that are rapid-fire analytics and the 2AC/2NC theory blocks.

I can conceptually come to terms with 2NC counterplans in response to 2AC add-ons, but I don’t like them very much, and I would prefer to avoid debates that require new cards going into the 2NR/2AR.

On theory debates about counterplan planks, perm severance & intrinsicness, etc. I will default to reject the argument until you make an argument for reject the team.

Disadvantages & Impact Comparison

I want to understand your scenario as early in the debate as possible, so please make it clear and explain the link chain. You should have an explanation of the story of the disadvantage that is as concrete and jargon-free as possible, especially at the top of the 2NR.

Impact comparison should be composed of persuasive arguments, not a magnitude-probability-timeframe-turns case checklist.

Karl Carisme Hire 9 rounds None

Steffani Castillo Margarita Muniz Academy 9 rounds None

Maeve Dufresne Josiah Quincy Upper School HS 9 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:57 AM EST

Yes I want to be on the email chain: maeveknowlton@gmail.com

Slow down during your blocks.

Please :) better yet send them if you want.

General

Background: currently a college debater at Suffolk

5 years of judging experience

3 years middle school urban debate
3 years high school national circuit

Cross is open unless its a maverick or someone requests that it be closed.

She/Her please

PLEASE sign post(say which argument you talk to when changing topics) during your speeches. If I look confused I probably am.

please give roadmaps. Roadmap for 1nc = how many offs then case. Roadmaps for any other speech is the order of arguments being addressed.

Assume that I know nothing going into the round. I won't debate for you in the RFD, you need to explain to me why you win on certain arguments in the round.

You can run any arguments in front of me, including Ks.

I guess I'm a tech over truth judge but in a good round a distinction doesn't need to be made. You need to explain to me why you won in the context of the debate and not just why your argument is true, especially for Ks and framework.

Incase you're wondering, I was a K debater in high school on both aff and neg for most of my career. And I also am very critical of poorly made Ks, so be warned. I do college debate now and do more policy but still do K.

Be nice! Especially in novice. If you are varsity be clever/charming/funny. Make the environment enjoyable to be in for everyone.

Arguments

K: My biggest thing with Ks is that out of round impacts need to be argued very very well for me to vote for them, because as someone who's been in the debate scene for years, they're quite literally just not true. If you win the out of round impacts then I'll vote for it but it will be nearly impossible to convince me that out of round spill over exists unless you literally show it. I've judged these arguments for 5 years, it's not going to pull my heart strings. I heavily prefer in round impacts/fiated K impacts. You'll be more successful and the debate will be more interesting for everyone. Additionally, I've judged a lot of butchered and watered down versions of Ks that are painful to watch, so if you're going to run a K please read the literature or at least debate with someone who has. A poorly articulated K is the most boring round to judge.

K AFFs: I can definitely be a good judge for you and I love K affs but things you should know 1) Your aff should have a specific reason to be on the aff. please do not just copy and paste your 1nc(and vice versa) 2) You should have a clear reason for the ballot. 3) If your aff is a method of political resistance you should be clear on what it is or isn't. Vagueness will hurt your chances at a ballot with me.If the debate is K v Kaff, please do not lose track of A) tech and B) the actual rundown of your aff. If the synopsis of your aff changes mid round I will notice. The worst K affs are slippery advocacy's that don't argue for anything in particular and don't know what they want to be until the 1ar.
Performance: I love good performance debates! however, I can't listen to music over your speech because I am autistic. I love good performance debates though! Feel free to send the lyrics and if you tell me what the value of the music is in the speech. If the music has an influence over the ballot or argument I will evaluate it as if I had heard it. You should also be prepared to explain why the performance of the aff is integral to it's solvency/advocacy. Performances that stop being talked about after the 1ac are boring and defeat the purpose.

Framework: Framework arguments matter a lot to me and I will consider them heavily while voting. if you're running a K along the lines of "reject aff's thinking" or "embrace this mindset" and you don't explain what that means to me in terms of voting (role of the ballot) then I will vote you down. If you don't explain the voters of your framework then I can't evaluate it. Even if you win on framework the other team can still win under it. "Dropping framework" does not mean you win the round unless you explain to me why your framework being used frames how I judge the round in the result of a ballot for you.

T: Feel free to run topicality in front of me, but A) I buy into reasonability pretty often and B) if you claim to be unprepared for the most common aff in the year I will keep that in mind while evaluating the T.Fairness and clash are internal links,not impacts

CP: You can run CPs, but be clear on the competition to the aff and/or net benefit. More harsh on PICS than regular CPs but you can still run them.

Theory: You need to show real examples of abuse and its effect on the round. Truth vs teched is swapped here for me, though tech still matters. Unless there's a serious breach of ethics in the round I will most likely ignore it. However please do run it if there is because I love voting down unethical teams.

Disclosure: if I witness an active refusal, or if they break new last second then I'll give it attention, but if it's A) a novice prelim round or B) a minor mistake I won't take it to seriously.
Spreading: Will only evaluate it if you request an accommodation and the other team refuses or ignores it. If you don't request a lower speed before the round I will most likely not buy this argument, almost every round at a tournament I'm judging at, spreading should be expected.
Condo: Show specific examples of condo making the round worse, things like contradicting arguments (especially K/theory/T), arguments being randomly picked up and dropped, etc.
PICS bad: if your pic is literally just "AFF plus another thing" and not an actual different method testing that the aff can engage with without being extra topical or debating themself, you will be vulnerable to losing to this theory if I am your judge. Most PICs are not that bad but I've seen some pretty abusive pics.
Perm bad: a very hard maybe. If the perm is lazy I can buy it. if the alt/cp is vague and doesn't have clear competition I won't.

I will update this if I see a new theory argument (there's always something)

DA: I haven't seen a 2nr go for DA not as a net benefit to a CP in a long time. they're basically just parts of the CP shells now, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just what I expect. keep in mind that the magnitude of the impact is usually the least important part of the DA for me. Uniqueness>>>Impact Risk and timeframe has much more weight in terms of impact framing. Extinction has no weight on the ballot unless every other part of the DA is sound, don't just keep rambling about how big of a deal it is because I don't care. Talk about links and uniqueness, FINISH THE SHELL.

Speaker Points

I tend to give pretty high speaks if you do well.

If you ask good cross-ex questions I may give you more points, and I understand cross can be intense, but being overly aggressive or rude in cross is a VERY big ick to me and can deduct major speaker points.

If you straight up lie about something in the round continuously and it isn't a mistake, then I will be annoyed and will drop speaks. I.E misinterpreting something they said in cross, lying about the flow/arguments dropped, etc.

Alison Eggers Hire 9 rounds None

Sam Hiken Hire 9 rounds

Frank P Irizarry Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:32 PM EST

Judge Paradigm for Frank Irizarry, Suffolk University

Name: Frank Irizarry

Email:firizarry@suffolk.edu

College: Suffolk University

Current Profession: Professor/Debate Coach

Judging for: Suffolk University Debate / The Boston Debate League

My experience:

I was a CEDA debater at Marist College (1989-1993) and I coached at the college level for 15 years (Northern Illinois University, Syracuse University, Pace University, University of Florida, Suffolk University). I have been actively involved with the Boston Debate League for the last 14 years and I judge periodically for the BDL. I have judged policy debate for a long time.

After a 14 year "sabbatical" from coaching, I am back coaching college debate for Suffolk University. I am looking forward to this next act in my debate journey.

I am fairly open to whatever debaters want to do stylistically in a debate round. I wasn't always like that but time away gives you some perspective and I realize that this activity belongs to the debaters so I try to create minimal interference in their argument/advocacy strategy.

If you'd like to know about my thoughts on the typical things debaters generally like to ask about, here goes:

Rate of Delivery: You need to slow it down a bit. The hand speed is not what it once was. Additionally, when you are reading blocks of analytics, it is difficult for me to catch everything that you said. Also, the way some debaters underline/highlight their cards doesn't make sense to me as I'm listening to the debate. And I am listening. I actually try to flow and not just construct the round from your speech docs.

Start of the Debate: You do not have to countdown "3..2..1." You're getting ready to read the 1AC, not launch a rocket ship into space."

Quantity of Arguments: I prefer a few well developed arguments but if your strategy involves making lots of arguments early in the debate, so be it.

I am willing to vote on: Topicality, Counterplans, Generic Disadvantages, Conditional Negative Positions, Debate Theory Arguments, Critical Arguments.

I am probably in the minority here but I dislike multiple counterplans in a debate. I think it makes for bad debate. I have voted for teams reading multiple CP's but it never makes me happy.

Ultimately, I like well reasoned arguments, a defense of those arguments and clash on the arguments in the debate.

I dislike rudeness directed toward me or your opponent.

If you have any questions, just ask!

Saraiya Jackson Boston Latin Academy HS 9 rounds None

Julie Kurd Hire

Amit Mangal Hire 9 rounds None

Heisha Medina John D. O'Bryant School Of Mathematics And Science 9 rounds None

Fatuma Mohamed Hire 9 rounds

Jen Newman Hire 9 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 10:10 AM -05

Last substantial edit: Jan 2018

Hello!

My name is Jen! I currently work in nonprofit communications in Boston, MA. Before that, I spent two years as a graduate assistant debate coach for Vanderbilt Univerisity's policy team. I have experience judging for both BP and Policy at the college level, as well as middle and high school policy formats.

For BDL high school tournaments:

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates! More below...

- I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter (but still need to hear the fully explained T argument, please).

- Affs, don't drop this.

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

______

For college tournaments:

My pronouns are she/her/hers. I expect all debaters to either use gender-neutral terms for the other debaters in the round or use each debater's preferred pronouns (which can be made known at each debaters' discretion through Tabroom). Speaker points are at stake.

* Please send documents to jennifer.elizabeth.newman@gmail.com *

My judging philosophy...

- I am open to hearing arguments of all types, but I feel strongly that the debate space needs to be inclusive. That's my bias. Other than that, I am pretty chill. Just be considerate.

- Although I have these listed by division, it may be a good idea for debaters to read all the sections.

I. Novice - with the packet

- Be sure to answer every argument. There are cards in there to answer all of the arguments for every affirmative case.

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

II. JV

Some things to note:

- I also like policy debates. In fact, I think this topic lends itself to some incredibly interesting potential policy affs. I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

III. OPEN

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

Framework

- Hard Framework (aka we should be debating government policy action): I don't typically vote on this. I attribute this to seeing K debates where the K team is well-prepared for this. It could also be that I am just not persuaded by it because I think K debates are really important to the debate space.

- Soft Framework (aka you have to DO something, and/or you have to engage the state in some way. You don't have to use the state but you have to engage it): I am actually likely to vote on this. The ground argument, or a version of that, is really compelling to me for Affs that have shifty ground and no-link out of other Ks or DAs. I'd say it's a good thing to go for when you don't have anything else. For the Aff, be ready to explain to me exactly what ground the neg had that they failed to see and go for.

- Affs, don't drop this.

- I am less likely to vote on T for Carbon Tax than I am for cellulosic ethanol. I think it's difficult for most affirmatives to actually BE topical (insert disgruntled comments about the resolution here). I think you should be able to justify your aff is topical.

- Effects T is a thing I will vote on if you go all in and the other team doesn't provide satisfactory answers. In a K debate, I'm less likely to vote on effects T if there are Aff answers like effects T bad or something like that.

Techy Stuff

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. DO. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I know that sounds super rudimentary but really teams miss doing this in the rebuttals. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic (this year, whether a specific climate policy is good) then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about (the problematic) and what my role as a judge is in this round.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

If you got this far (for all divisions)

1. Go prep with your team.

2. JK here's some fun ways to win speaks (I'll only give you credit for two times).

- Beyoncé quotes (or that Beyoncé should have won album of the year) +0.1 speaks

- Disney animated movie quotes (Particularly from the 90s-early 2000s, like Aladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast...) +0.1 speaks

- I will change this up a bit each tournament.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Feel free to ask me questions, or seek further explanation of my reasonings after the round! :)

Best of luck!

P.S. If something isn't in here that you think should be, please let me know!

Finnian Nibert Boston Latin Academy HS 9 rounds

Juliette Salah Hire

Last changed on Sun September 15, 2024 at 6:09 AM EST

Suffolk SW

Northview IS, MS

Assistant Coach - Suffolk University

b2.kingofnato@gmail.com

Top

**If I look confused, I am confused, please make me not confused.

**Yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER reading the K in front of me on either side IS NOT a guaranteed ballot. Quite frankly I've grown frustrated with the K especially when it's poorly debated.

**Novices: "I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it.So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows.I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do!By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points" - Ben Schultz

**LD folks scroll to the bottom for specific LD stuff

General

1—Please don't call me judge. Makes me feel hella old. Just call me Juliette.

2—Tech over truth to its logical extent. Debate is not about solely the truth level of your arguments but your ability to substantially defeat the other team’s claims with your technical ability.

3—When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate."- Matt Cekanor

4—For those curious, I mainly debated the K in high school (on both sides). I'm usually good with most Ks, even so, you still have the burden of explaining it to me well as I vote off the flow and won't do additional work for you even if I read the lit. (Excuse the rant but...) I think most POMO arguments in debate are stupid and for some reason every POMO debate I've judged the team has double turned themselves (lowk probably cuz most (if not all) POMO is ridiculous to read in this activity). Then again, debate it well and yes I will vote on whatever POMO stuff you throw my way.

K-Affs

Yes, I read a K aff. Yes, I will vote on them. No, I don't think a majority of these affs solve any of the impacts they claim to solve. I think a key thing that most of these affs lack is proper solvency. If you're going to convince me that you solve things, I need a good reason to either why your method is good (i.e. give me concrete examples of what your aff looks like) and/or tell me why an aff ballot in this debate solves. That being said, for the negative, I often find a good presumption push to be a solid strat.

Framework

1. No preference on what impact you go for (but come on, clash is not an impact... alas, if you debate it well I will vote on it). Some impacts require more case debating than others. For example, if going for fairness, you need to spend more time winning the ballot portion of your offense and defense against the other team’s theory of how debate operates. If going for clash, you need to spend more time winning how your model over a year’s worth of debates can solve their offense and spend more time with defense to the affirmative.

2. I have spent a large part of my high school career thinking about arguments for the negative and the affirmative in these debates. To put it into perspective, almost 90% of my debates over a given season are framework debates, on the neg and the aff. For a large amount of framework debates, the better-practiced team always wins.

3. Use defense to your advantage. Nebulous claims of inserting the affirmative can be read on the negative with no specific internal link or impact debating will largely not factor in my decision. However, there are fantastic ways to use defense like switch side debate and the TVA.

4. Very specific TVA’s can work against very specific types of framework arguments. If the affirmative has forwarded a critique of debating the topic then TVA’s can mitigate the affirmative’s DAs. However, if the affirmative team has forwarded an impact turn to the imposition of framework in the round, they are less useful.

5. Impact turning topicality - Do it. Do it well and you'll be rewarded.

6. Often times when starting out, 2AR's go for too much in the 2AR. If you are impact turning T, go for one DA's and do sufficient impact comparison. Your 2AR should answer the questions of how T is particularly violent or links to your theory of power and most importantly HOW MY BALLOT CAN RESOLVE THOSE THINGS. Your impact only matters as much as its scope of solvency. You must also do risk comparison. Most neg framework teams are better at this. The way the aff loses these debates is when there's a DA with substantive impact turn and there's a negative impact that is explained less but is paired with substantively more internal link work and solvency comparison.

If going for a CI, focus on one impact turn and focus on how the CI solves it and how the DA links to their interp. Think of it like CP, your CI should include some aspects of their interpretation but avoids the risk of your DAs.

K v Policy AFF

Two types of 2NRs. Ones that go for in round implications and ones that go for out of round implications.

A)In Round—In round route requires a larger push on framework and a higher level of technical debating on the level of the standards but is usually much easier if you’re a practiced K 2NR. 2NC will usually have like 10 arguments on framework, 1AR extends their standards and answers like 2 arguments. 2NR just goes for the DA and all conceded defense, GGs. In addition, the best K 2NRs going for the in round version will have a link to the “plan or the effects of the plan”. What this means in this sense is that they will tie affirmative implementation to a link that proves their ethic mobilizes bad subjects IN DEBATE.

B)Out of Round—Out of round requires like close to 0 time on framework. Most policy 2As now just grant the K links but just say affirmative vs the alternative. Thus, if you are going for the alternative with links to the plan, just spend time winning the link debate, explaining why the affirmative doesn’t happen in the way they think. Most times these Ks will have a substantial impact turn debate so winning that is essential.

K v K Debates

1. Technical Debating is often lost in these debates but this necessarily happens due to the nature of K v K debates as theory of power debating is often the most important part. That being said, vague link debating will mitigate you winning your theory of power.

2. You need to pick something and defend it. The neg team will ask about the affirmative in 1AC CX, that explanation should stay consistent throughout the round. Lack of a consistent explanation will lower my threshold for buying a risk of a link and higher the burden for you to win the permutation.

3. Use links to implicate solvency. Often times its hard to make a K aff stick to in round or out of round solvency. Use links in the 2NC and 2NR to mitigate parts of both so even if the 2AR consolidates to one, you still have defensive arguments.

4. K affs have built in theory of power and solvency that's inherently offensive. I'll be grumpy if you jettison the aff but will not if you provide extrapolated offensive explanations in the 2AR using your affirmative and pieces of offense that they dropped. 2AR's that do this will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality (Policy v Policy)

1. Fine judge for these debates. T can lower your burden of prepping out some affirmatives that are inherently untopical and it's a good strat to have in your back pocket. However, for this topic the caselists and violations are pretty overlimiting.

2. Caselists are always useful for understanding these arguments.

3. Impact debating doesn't matter much in these debates but internal link debating does. Make sure to indict and compare interps and both sides. Predictability is the IL to all impacts.

4. The best 2AR's in these debates are ones that pick through negative evidence and identify no intent to define, arbitrariness, and combine that with reasonability

Counterplans

1. Probably err negative on theory concerns but if there's a technical crush I will certainly vote affirmative.

2. My predisposition toward counterplans is that they must be both textually and functionally competitive but always up to interpretation by the theory debate in round.

3. The best counterplans are PICs and other counterplans that are cut to beat specific affs. That being said, I do find some PICs to be extremely abusive so I will be sympathetic towards the aff on a PICs bad theory debate.

4. Presumption flips aff when you read a CP.

5. Affirmatives always freak out when they hit a CP they don't have blocks to but your advantages are there for a reason, its not hard to write specific deficits during the 1NC.

Theory

I dislike generic theory debates. I do not think anything but condo/extremely abusive PICs is a reason to reject the team but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is extreme in-round abuse or the other team straight-up drops it.

It will take a lot to convice me to vote aff on condo in a one/two conditional off debate. Three conditional off can start getting more legit in novice. Four and plus and sure I'll listen.

1. Risk matters most when evaluating a DA. The affirmative arguments are made to give me skepticism in the internal links and the negatives job is to mitigate that by link work and turns case debating implicating affirmative solvency.

2. DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact arguments are presented. If not present in the block, the 1AR will get new answers. I also need a full scenario in the 2NR for me to vote on.

3. When the DA is the best utilized is the 1NR. Very hard for the 1AR when 1NR gets 5 minutes to read a slew of cards answering all 2AC claims.

Case

1. Yes you can win on a straight-up presumption ballot. This type of ballot is not popular anymore but it should be. Too many teams get away with reading an affirmative with no specific evidence or internal links. This was especially prevalent on the criminal justice reform topic but it is still a problem on the water topic too. Teams will highlight evidence terribly and act like the solve it even though it makes no sense, especially against the K. K teams should take advantage of this. Ex. aff that talks about financing technologies- solvency advocates will mention one type of technology but the advantage area will be about a different kind. Neg teams call this out and go for presumption.

2. Affirmative teams must answer all case arguments not merely by extending their impact again but by answering the warrants in the card. Most policy teams just say "doesn't assume our x" without refuting the warrants in the card.

Argument Preferences

1. Don't really care what you read in front of me. Though I've spent the vast majority of my high school career in the K realm, and probably because of that, I've thought about most policy answers to the K so either side can make sense to me. However, it is your job as debaters to ensure a technical win, and ensure my job is to solely evaluate the flow.

2. If you are going to read the K in front of me, please do it well. Because I've seen the K debated at some of the highest levels, it's annoying to see it butchered.

3. I'm fine for policy v policy throw-downs. These debates are often much easier to resolve as one team almost always clearly wins on the flow and are much easier to understand.

Speaker Points

I find myself giving speaks on the higher end. Ways to improve your speaks include:

Being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, make fun of anyone I know.

Cross-ex can be a great way to improve speaks, however, there's a thin line between being competetive and just being rude and I have no shame in docking speaks if you choose to be a jerk.

It irks me when debaters claim their opponents "dropped" something when I have it on my flow. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and you don't flow an argument or something similar. However (comma) if it becomes a recurring problem in a speech I will dock speaks each time it happens.

Also, I will yell "clear" three times, if you choose not to slow down or be clear I will start docking speaks. If you are speaking faster than I can move my pen or type then don't complain when I didn't catch something on my flow. "I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it." - Blake Deng

I’m not an LD person, so keep things as simple and direct as possible.

I sorta know what a value criterion is.

You gotta do more weighing in phil debates.

Now on a technicality I’m probably best for the K, however, because policy speech times are longer, I tend to look for more warranted comparisons by the end of the debate. Also, I just have high standards for explanations.

I refuse to vote on something I don’t comfortably understand.

Important thing to remember is I was a policy debater NOT and LD debater. Lucky for you, my face says it all, if I look confused, I am confused, please just make me not confused. Also, NO TRICKS.

David Sipos Hire 9 rounds None

Youssef Souayah John D. O'Bryant School Of Mathematics And Science 9 rounds None

Dayana Ulloa Brighton High School 9 rounds None

Kaia Walters Boston Latin Academy HS 9 rounds None

Scott Wiersman Hire 9 rounds

Jianping Ye Brighton High School 9 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

High School Tournament 2 at Boston Latin Academy

2024 — Boston, MA/US

BDL Paradigm List

Judges