9th Annual Middle School Tournament of Champions
2025 — NSDA Campus, KY/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am a parent judge, so treat me like you would any lay judge.
Do speak clearly and be understandable (fully spreading is not preferred by me, if you feel the need to, please share your document with me)
A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Be concise.
Have a strong impact and explain your weighing.
In cross examination try to be confident but never rude, let other people finish speaking or ask a question.
Communication, eye contact, always face the judge when talking. Please stand up when you talk and project your voice!
be polite, be confident, be persuasive
I've been judging for four years, and I focus on the key arguments that actually matter in the round. I care about well-explained arguments with solid warrants and clear impacts. Weighing is super important—help me understand why your argument matters more.
Speed is fine, but clarity is better. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you. A strong, confident delivery with good rhetoric goes a long way.
Debate should be a space for smart, respectful discussions. I don’t reward aggressive or dismissive behavior—keep it civil.
Signposting and good organization make my job easier. If I have to work too hard to follow your arguments, that’s on you.
At the end of the day, I vote on what happens in the round, so be clear, weigh well, and make my decision easy. Feel free to ask me any questions before we start!
add: stanleyliuthefirst@gmail.com
i debate for dougherty valley
1 - larp/stock k's
2 - performance/k aff/non-t
3 - pomo k/theory
4 - phil
5/STRIKE - trix/friv/bs
just listing some top level stuff that comes to mind:
- tech > truth with some niche exceptions
- death is probably bad but ill evaluate it -- conceded args are fair game and should be implicated clearly
- i am tab but i will not evaluate trix/friv/skep/phil that relies on a conceded one liner blip
- similar to line above but if you're gonna read phil explain ur syllogism clearly and your stuff should be clearly warranted with toned down explanations of what ur phil says -- treat me like im stupid
- dont read pomo unless you can explain to yourself what your own k says -- i have experience w/ lacan/psycho so i can eval them
- anything beyond 250 wpm give me a second to switch my flows pls
speaks:
30 speaks for a good cx
30 speaks for using the last 30 seconds of your speech to sing kanye
minus speaks for:
having more than one minute left in your speech (unless the W is clear off a concession)
being rude/condescending -- cx should be aggressive but theres a line drawn between substantive cx and just being a doofus
• As a judge I prioritize clear communication, effective persuasion, and logical argumentation.
• I evaluate the performances based on well researched arguments, evidence based, keep it clear and simple, and logical.
• Speak clearly and concisely, if you are reading too fast, I will not understand your argument.
• I will give you verbal communication if there are any technical issues during online tournament for example: Audio and video issues, if you are not audible to me.
• I am a good listener and taking notes through out the round.
• Looking for respectful behavior towards opponents.
• I will base my decision on the strengths and validation of your arguments you presented.
• I believe in time management.
• Have fun, to learn something new is exciting, learning is a never ending process.
Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)
TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
My GOATs: Krizel, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Vontrez, Scott Philips,
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL
specific thoughts:
FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.
DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated
Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.
K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.
T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out
Theory: I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance. Splitting isn't horrible but extend warrants and the story of abuse. Up layer arguments must be clearly warranted out.
LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.
Trix: be clear on warrants in order to beat the inevitable gut check. When answering trix calling out the silliness is fine but shouldn't be the only answer.
Speaks: I give them fr.
If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.
Email: okvanessan@gmail.com
Kapaun Mt. Carmel/Mount Carmel Independent '19. I did policy debate for four years.
University of Southern California '23. I did not compete but was still involved with the policy debate team.
General:
Please be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, my face is just like that.
Again, I haven't competed since high school and I'm not as involved as I once was: this means I've forgotten lots of jargon and you will need to slow down a bit. The technical nuances of debate aren't as intuitive to me anymore so please explain the implications of your arguments more.
I don't really have any strong opinions on debate other than:
(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and
(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that.
If you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives, you're only hurting yourself.
Feel free to email me with any further questions.
Content:
Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure whether your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.
For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with critical arguments. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your arguments more. Such debates are easier for me to follow if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.
I think fairness is the best impact.
I think affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.
I know very little about the topic. Please keep this in mind if going for T.
I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.
*LD note: I dislike RVIs.
Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots! Fight on!
CONTENT WARNING: GRUMPY. FRUSTRATED
PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. NOVICES GET GRACE. VARSITY DOES NOT. WORK ON SENDING DOC SKILLS IN PRACTICE. I WILL START YOUR SPEECH TIME IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP.
IF ROUNDS START LATE BECAUSE OF YOU I WILL DEDUCT 1.5 SPEAKER POINTS 3 SPEAKER POINTS IF ITS A FLIGHT 2 DEBATE.
DON'T STEAL PREP. IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing)
HONESTLY I LIKE GOOD DEBATES NOW. GOOD POLICY, KRITIK, TOPICALITY DEBATES. PHIL DEBATES THAT ISN'T 100 SHORT UNWARRANTED ANALYTICS WITH 50 HIDDEN TRICKS IN SIDE READ AT 600 WORDS PER MINUTE. I AM TIRED.
Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]
About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.
General/Short version:
- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." This is an awful practice. Don't do it.
- Tech > Truth
- Line by line > Overviews but the best debaters will combine both.I'm not a good judge for debaters that don't engage in the line by line.
- Asking for a marked doc comes from your prep if it wasn't egregious, but their prep if it was (i.e they marked 15 cards without saying what words they marked it at). Please get better at flowing. Free game: You should be flowing by ear and not off the doc and the doc should be used for reference and evidence validation.
- Judge instruction GOOD. REALLY GOOD.
- I will evaluate the debate objective but assume I know very little about ANYTHING. It is your obligation to extend and explain your position. Not my job to read it and explain it for you.
- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND JUSTIFY* why I should.
- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I know little about ANYTHING. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.
- I'm not flowing of the doc. I only even glance at the document in 2/100 debate. Doc flowing has destroyed this activity incentivizing ATROCIOUS clarity and rhetorical practices and bad flowing skills for debaters. It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it Clarity is axiomatic.
- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. You folks are UNFLOWABLE (see above)
- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.
- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.
- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.
- I don't care to see a bad theory debate. I do not want to invest mental or physical energy deciphering an incoherent bad theory debate. i.e "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)
- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations
- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.
- I don't care how far away or close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. Skills, fairness, impact turns, all that is cool.
- For "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because fairness is *probably* *somewhat* good)
- I zone out alot in CX. Please grab my attention for an important concession.
- For Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.
- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.
- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams
- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.
- Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!
0. General:
chain for policy/general questions
chain for ld (pls add both)
Coaching: Isidore Newman, Coppell, IVA High
Conflicts: a few LAMDL teams.
Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, Gavie Torres, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.
"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.
1. Pref Guide:
General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience. I care a lot about debate. Whether or not I should can be changed by persuasive argumentation.
Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.
There are little predispositions that I have about debate that cannot be changed by good debating. Any endorsement of violence/racism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto-L + nuked speaker points. Ev-ethics includes shifty citational practices/ev misconstruction or clipping. All ethics challenges stop the debate with no room for continuation. In most scenarios I'm not looking at the doc, which means you should probably have a recording of the speech as proof.
I care about evidence quality far less than most judges. In most instances, substantive debating overrides bad debating with assertion of (X) piece of evidence or (X) author, however I prefer both a good combination of both. I care more about line by line, 3rd/4th level testing, and in-depth clash as opposed to just "how good evidence is". If I wanted to read evidence, I would read a book. I judge debates to see debaters debate out arguments, and reading evidence as a starting point for an RFD when not contested seems paradoxical to the activity.
I do not yell clear during C.I.A. level ear-torturing tactics. Clarity is important, and if you are unclear, the decision and speaks will reflect such. If you ask me about an argument that you "made" that didn't have the effect on a decision you thought it did, it's because you either a. did not explain it well enough to make it that way or b. it was absolutely incoherent and I did not hear or understand it.
LD Specific: Do what you want, everything else applies from above applies.
2. Random/Misc:
Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.
Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.
Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.
mhs ‘26
goodsamaritanparadox[at]gmail[dot]com
Influences: aidan etkin, parker traxler, lydia wang, sebastian cho, sophia tian, ishan sharma
I get distracted easily. Tech > truth. Arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication. My threshold for all three is low. Would really enjoy robust judge instruction. I'll open the doc to check for clipping, will start flowing by ear entirely by the 1NC on case. Will probably read evidence for fun, but won't extrapolate warrants. I reserve the right to stop rounds for discriminatory behavior.
Shortcuts
1 - policy, theory
2 - tricks, topicality
3 - k, phil
Defaults: please don’t make me default. Dtd, ci, no rvis. presumption/permissibility negate. Yes judgekick
Policy
-
A large portion of what I read junior year.
-
Please weigh. Love turns case.
-
Neg leaning on condo, but don’t really care.
-
Good for any sort of process cp, neg leaning for process but again not by much. I think I have a good grasp of competition, but if the debate gets muddled I’ll get confused.
-
Love adv cp, da, case 2nrs! Will def boost speaks for a good one.
-
Slow down on perm texts
-
Please answer case…
Kritiks
-
What I ran mostly freshman/sophomore year - really out of practice & honestly was sick of them for half my career. Familiar with setcol, cap, baudrillard, fem, pess (answering, not reading), but definitely out of practice.
-
The aff probably gets to weigh case, the k probably gets links. Definitely aff leaning though in terms of framework
-
Fairness is an impact
-
Not persuaded by subject formation
-
Link turns case is good
K affs
-
Very neg leaning on framework. See above for thoughts on subject formation
-
Was always the neg in these debates. Good for wtv framework tricks
-
Bad for k affs that don’t discuss the res.
-
Bad for “vote me up because i am [x] identity”
-
Not good for kvk debates that get past like cap or humanism…not even very good for humanism honestly
Theory
-
Defaults: dtd, no rvis, competing interps, 1ar theory > 1nc theory > 1ac theory - in the absence of paradigm issues/weighing, unless one side says about 2 words on it.
-
Weigh. Please!
-
Be neat & clear - I’m not a great flower and I probably won’t try to be - I won’t be able to get down 30 standards in 10 seconds
-
There is no such thing as friv theory - there are shells that are more frivolous, but you should just be able to beat back the shells you think are frivolous. That being said, some of my favorites to read were broken interps, rob spec, afc, a priori spec, converse theory, and any form of disclosure
Topicality
-
Good for subsets, bad for nebel.
-
Not rly any other notes
-
T - nilesh
Tricks
-
Only slightly lower bc most tricks debates are blippy, unflowable, and irresolvable…
-
Good for most logic tricks, but I won't do the work for you. please explain.
-
Weighing is especially important for these debates
-
Good for spikes in moderation, bad for nailbombs.
-
Tell me when to evaluate the speech, I guess…
Speaks
-
Probably will average anywhere between a 28.7-29. probably also a speaks fairy.
-
Will disclose speaks granted I remember them
I am parent judge but has been coach/assists for many years. I am very familiar with LD/PF debate and will flow your speech.
Clarity is critical. if you speak fast but unclear, I won't be able to flow.
Tech > Truth, I will value how your opponent responds to yours. However, with that said, I won't value completely non-sense statements.
Any new evidences brought in 2 AR will be auto dropped.
Disclaimer: I will not value Disclosure Shell if you use on people who just join circuit debate.
Evaluation Criteria:
Please demonstrate understanding of current topic and build your case and evidence around it. If you are running framework or Kritiks, please make sure you have strong linkage to the topic.
Defense of your case: Make sure you understand the card and impacts you are using. When asked by your opponent on the definition of your contention, I expect you have a clear and concise answer for it.
Rebuttal: While it's important to not drop response to your opponent contentions, It's also important to give quality response. Effective rebuttal will gain great points.
Email doc before round starts. Disclosure is good.
Email Chain/Questions : lmshao98@gmail.com
I am new to judging debates. My expectations are simple, please speak clearly and slowly. I prefer to hear clarity of thoughts, logical arguments backed by evidence. Consistency of arguments and proper refutes backed on the basis of evidence or references would be good to make your case. I love good debates and will judge them with open mind. Wish you good luck.
I am a "freshman" Judge (Lay Judge) with experience in judging 3 prior PF events. I would like the competitors to speak / recommend their case in "Slow to medium" speed. Competitors should time themselves for each section of the debate.
I am a parent judge. I participated in Speech and Debate when I was in high school so I am familiar with the events (although many things have changed since I was in high school!).
I am looking for:
- structured speech/debate with sign posting if relevant
- strong and logical arguments with strong evidence/supporting data where applicable. I prefer conciseness rather verbosity
- clear and smooth delivery; loud enough (but not shouting) and confident (but not aggressive)
- Important: do not speed talk at such a fast pace that you are not understandable or the pace doesn't allow you to emphasize key points. If I don't understand you or your key points get lost, it will be to your disadvantage. I'm not a fan of spreading. I prefer a few strong points which are clearly articulated, delivered at an understandable pace and strongly supported with evidence.
he/him/they/them
For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com
CSUF 22
Coach @ Harvard Westlake and CSUF
--------------------------------------
For College: My debate paradigm is tailored to LD (I judge that the most). Most of the stuff below applies, with the caveat of having philosophy at a "1/2" and trix at "2/3". I think the time structure and topic wording of LD make it more viable/interesting for that format, but in college policy, I'd probably be more inclined to vote on a utilitarian framing than a deontological one. I'll read the evidence after the round and would appreciate judge instruction. No ideological leaning for K or policy. Dropped arguments = true arguments. Explain acronyms. I'd like to intervene as little as possible and don't wanna evaluate out of round stuff
--------------------------------------
Pref shortcut:
Policy - 1/2
K - 1
K Aff/ Performance - 2
Philosophy - 1/2
Trix - 2/3
T - 3/4
Theory - 3/4
--------------------------------------
I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.
I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.
TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.
--------------------------------------
General
I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things
Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)
Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must
Judging a trad debate would be pretty funny
My favorite neg strategies are "NC, AC", the 1 off critique, a good da/cp debate
Like creative affs (policy, phil, and k)
--------------------------------------
Theory
Disclosure is good unless proven otherwise
Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs (not hard rule), DTD
Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter
Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?
I think condo is good
1AR restarts are risky but I'd be pleasantly surprised if executed well
--------------------------------------
Policy
Absurd internal link chains should be questioned
Default util
No zero-risk
Uniqueness controls the link
Impact turns are good
Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies
Yes judge kick
Will read evidence if told to do so
Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev
Usually default reasonability on T
--------------------------------------
K
I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K
Winning theory of power important
Perm solves the link of omission
Specific link > state bad link
Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts
Extinction outweighs debate probably good here
Soft left affs with a good link turn are persuasive for me
--------------------------------------
K Affs
I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so otherwise T is pretty persuasive (imapct turn it)
I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.
Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA
Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters
KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.
Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates
Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win
--------------------------------------
Phil
I find these debates fun to judge, but debaters should still err on the side of over explanation (especially if its dense)
Epistemic confidence
I don't care what phil you read, but I would probably enjoy seeing something I've never judged before
Weighing matters here still, especially between competing frameworks and meta-ethics
--------------------------------------
Trix
Sure, all I ask is that the trick has a warrant (even if it's hidden). If executed poorly, I will probably nuke speaks. If I miss the warrant for your trix and it's not in the doc, unlucky
I will evaluate the debate after the end of the 2AR (non-negotiable)
--------------------------------------
Speaker Points
Pretty much summed up here
If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point