This has been updated since after Sunvite 2025 It's been simplified substantially (yes, really) depending on when you last read it.

• yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com
• If I'm at your tournament and you have a question about a local or national round and I can't disclose, ask me after awards and I'll break down the round with you. Education is a good thing. I save the flows (generally) on day of tournament.

Notes before the paradigm proper:

* 1) Saying "it's new" to try to dodge disclosure is not good. This is probably the only disclo interp I'm persuaded to not hate.

2) The below is taken from Rose Larson. I strongly agree with the below. I'll add this: If it is a pattern with an individual debater (pattern= 2+ instances I've observed, not circuit heresay), my threshold will get increasingly low with responses as you're actively excluding others and that's not cool.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

3) Stolen from Deena McNamara because I think she's right:

"When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff."

(LD)

Defaults:

P&P- neg

Theory- DTA unless instructed otherwise. I am increasingly annoyed by theory that attempts to increasingly get away from substance. This doesn't mean I will move away from tech>truth, but it does mean that my threshold for specific shells continues to get lower. This includes spec shells. If you have questions, ask before round.

"But Grant you had more in your paradigm before". Yes. And at this point I've decided essay paradigms are a bad norm. Within reason read whatever so that you're reading what your style is. If you have questions, ask before round.

A note about arguments: As somebody recently said to me as I was judging "this isn't the panel to read determinism in front of". While I feel very comfortable judging most things (and can and will), there are certain arguments I just don't hear/adjudicate that much. If you're able to really break down and explain them really well, you'll get an auto 30 and it will be much easier for me to vote on [insert thing here]. If it's an argument I'm not as familiar with, if it's not explained well enough you may not get me to bite on it. This also means that if you read 25 tricks in an underview and then give me the blippiest extensions known to humankind expecting me grant them to you and then trash talk my decisions (yes, I'm thinking about one round in particular), it is on you. More explanation/contextualization/weighing>more things in the 2N/2AR.

Drops and extensions: Yes, you need to extend in every speech. I am not going to float things magically across your flow even if your opponent drops them. If you don't I won't vote for it.

PF Prefs:

A) Paraphrased evidence is a cancerous trend besetting this activity. Your doc with cards to supplant your paraphrased doc your coach gave you doesn't solve my desire to punt on paraphrased evidence wherein I'm more likely to vote on literal well thought out analytics than paraphrased evidence. Read paraphrased evidence at your own risk.

B) I am... annoyed at this ridiculous trend of pseudo kritiks being run. You can't develop it in four minutes properly without being seriously deficient on the flow elsewhere and will probably lose once your opponent kills your link. I am not the judge to read them in front of in PF. Go be an LDer or go to Policy.

C) If you don't weigh I'm gonna go for the bigger number absent a separate compelling reason to interpret the evidence a different way. If the evidence comparison is bad from both of you (it probably is since weighing and contextualization seems to be a lost art form), I'll evaluate the better contextualized scenario and/or the scenario that requires me to do less "work". I'm holding the line here.

D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate. I am equally unamused with this stupid trend of pre-flowing during the round time. Learn to be prepared and not waste everybody's time.

I generally agree with fast pf and theory thoughts in PF of Charles Karcher. No, I don't think paraphrasing and/or spreading a bajillion cards or reading some irrelevant abuse story makes it more likely to get my ballot.

Policy

* Honestly just kinda look at my LD stuff. There's not a lot you can read I won't understand, but I may need you to explain some of the warranting since that's been lacking in some rounds I've seen.

Background

I am a parent judge in my second year of judging. My background is in science and engineering and as such logic and well constructed framework and thought tend to rule the day with me.

General Paradigm (LD)

I am open to however you would like to construct your approach but as a judge still in the learning phase I appreciate clear roadmaps well constructed arguments over highly technical approaches such as Trix and Kritiks. They can be used but you run the risk of me missing them if they are too subtle/complex.

Flow

I prefer to take notes/flow and will admit spreading is difficult for me. I will favor quality over content and although I won’t deduct for speed, but if I don’t understand what you’re saying I won’t be able to judge on it.

Debate

I value and will vote on strong, case-based arguments. I am looking for debaters that are active in the debate, use time well and solidify arguments clearly and have voters in the 2AR and NR.

Some additional things to consider:

• Theory is new to me, please explain well

• Presumption: neg

• Permissibility: aff

• Careful of Trix, I will likely miss them

• I expect strong rebuttals from your own flow. Please don’t just ignore your opponent and reiterate your case in AR/NR. Show me you understand their argument and know how to defeat it.