I'm pretty open minded to any technique/approach with respect to cases and debating (spreading, Critiques, Theories etc).

I expect both debaters to exhibit sportsmanship and decorum when engaging with each other.

Be sure to provide adequate evidence and to link back to your Contention/Value Criterion. Try to provide distinctive arguments in a claim-warrant-impact format.

Also, be sure to crystallize your arguments in your last speech. This is important on the flow and I will weigh the round based on this.

Email: Akridgea989@gmail.com

hi!

my name is ajanay and i am a policy debater at Newark Tech. i use she/her pronouns and you can refer to me as ajanay or judge.

add me to the email chain╰┈➤ ajaabobbitt@gmail.com

in-round:

please be respectful to each other.

tech>truth: meaning i will evaluate the round based purely on the arguments made by both debaters.

i prefer clarity over speed, but spreading is fine as long as it is clear. if i have difficulty understanding you, i will say "clear." if i can’t understand it or it’s unclear, i won’t flow it. slow down on tags, authors, and analytics you want me to weigh. signposting and roadmaps are always helpful.

avoid making new arguments in the last speeches (e.g., 2AR/2NR).

i am okay with open or closed cross.

i have no preferences regarding standing or sitting; do whatever makes you feel comfortable.

weighing is key!! don’t just extend impacts, explain why they matter more than your opponent’s (magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc.). when extending, go beyond “extend X,” tell me what the argument is, why i should care, and how it responds to your opponent.

post-round:

feel free to ask any questions or thoughts after the round.

extras:

if you make a k-pop or brainrot reference in-round, +.5 speaker points.

if you make me laugh, +.5 speaker points.

most importantly, try your best and have fun!

p.s. if you ever have a round judged by Robert Menich, tell him that he is not the best debater at Newark Tech and that i am.

Hey y'all

A quick recap about me, throughout my four years of high school, I debated in PF (freshman and senior year), LD (sophomore), and Policy (junior and senior year). triple homicide. Second speeches is my life I love second speeches.

Cards:

If you have a card, it is your opponent's job to prove to me that the card is false or unreliable. until then, I will assume that the card is true.

please don't take 5 years to send out a card. if it take you longer than 1 min then you need to move on

Public Forum:

• I am not super strict on time, but since it has the shortest speaking time, I would prefer for everyone to keep up with the time given
• remember it is not about who can make the best policies for me it is about who can prove to me that their way of life is better.

Lincoln Douglass:

• I love value debate.
• If you are going to read a K about black people please make it make sense. I do not like it when people milk the suffering of black people just to win a round.

Policy:

• I LOVE POLICY DEBATE
• if you are going off-case let me know. I take away speaker points if there is a lack of organization.
• if you are one of those teams that give 1,000,000,000 off cases, then you will see me give you a major side-eye. (LOL)

overall:

I love impact debate the whole purpose for debate is information me why should I care about anything you are saying

I do not care about speed or if you sit or stand

If I do not hear your I will not flow.

I will give my RFD.

Everything I say in the round will be put in TAB.

Have fun you humans.

my email is deedeecorbett15@gmail.com - for email chain.

Email: jada.darby01@gmail.com

Hey! During my debate career I participated in K debate. In terms of judging preferences, debaters should feel free to do whatever they want. Being a K debater these are the arguments I love to hear the most. Also love performances, ultimately teams should do what they are most passionate about!

Debaters should give me a clear framing of my ballot . With spreading I'm not the biggest fan but if it's your choice, be sure to slow down on tags and most important arguments you want evaluated. If you are not clear imma tell you.

I will stop flowing after 4 off.

hey! i'm a policy debater @ newark tech

-----

for policy...

pre-round:

if you do need an e-mail for the chain, use dan.does.debates@gmail.com

-----

in-round:

tech > truth

i'm fine with spreading, as long as it is clear. at the bare minimum, slow down at taglines. i'll say "clear" if I am having trouble hearing you. beyond saying "clear" three times, i stop flowing what i don't understand.

no new arguments in the last speeches (1ar, 2nr, 2ac) and i want to know why you win different arguments in your final rebuttal. i don't wanna do a lot of work

-----

post-round:

depending on the requirements of the tournaments, i'll disclose (if all participants request such).

email me at dan.does.debates@gmail.com if you have any questions for me on ways you can improve!

-----

specific to newark debate associations ems debate...

speaks are on a scale from 15-25. i'll give extra speaks beyond what i ranked you in-round if you...

1- make a k-pop reference (for k-pop, a song will get you +0.5 and if u reference a lyric n' it makes sense ill give u +1) in rebuttal

2- make a joke in your rebuttal (you'll know the joke is good based off of how embarassed i get)

My name is Chris and I've been debating all of middle school in policy. This is my first year debating in high school.

Speaker point stuff:

Debate is a public speaking event, and I hold my debaters to a high speaking standard, so make sure you stand up and enunciate your words. Be loud and clear and confident, or else your speech will tank and it will affect my ballot.

If you want the best chance of securing a win, scream like your life depends on it when giving constructives. Talking about cats will also give you higher speaker points.

add me to the email chain: rachel2dabest@gmail.com

hi my name is rachel I don’t mind if you call me judge

it won't take a lot for me to vote for you, as long as you extend & explain your arguments through the round

make sure you focus on being clear rather than spreading because if I can't understand you I won't flow what you're saying

do not bring up new arguments in the 2ac/2nc and beyond

no one should be disrespectful, homophobic, or racist at all during the round

I don't flow cross but I listen to it and it can sway the decision I make

you can do open or closed cross it doesn't matter to me

extras:

if you mention recent brain rot you get +0.3 extra speaks

if you can make me laugh you'll get +0.5 extra speaks

if you bring me fruit snacks or ruffles you’ll get +0.5 extra speaks

if you do jumping jacks for 1 minute during the last rebuttal ill give you +1 extra speaks

Newark Science Alum - I debated LD 2004-2008, Had tons of fun, learned alot, made it to Nationals in Vegas my Senior Year. I have been judging LD on and off since then. 

I appreciate the traditional debating style and argument construction because I generally believe keeping things really simple and clear is more difficult than constructing a complex argument. Counter-intuitive, I know. With that said I also love new and fresh arguments and debating styles, as long as they make sense and are not complicated for the sake of complication (read: jargon and fluff)

I like when debaters tell me what to do in a round and why to do it. This makes signing the ballot a lot easier. I will sit and evaluate over 50 arguments at the end of the round. I will, but i'd rather you narrow it down by telling me what to focus on. 

Everthing below is Copied and pasted from my former coach, Jonathan Alston. We kinda share the same philosophies.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine. 

Do not spread philosophy. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it. 

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round. 

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I would like for the debates about the debate to be interesting. 

Pre-Standard Arguments
Every argument has a standard, even if it is pre the agreed upon standard in the round. Explain to me why it is important or makes sense. I like smart, substantive arguments. 

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe". 

palaguachipaul@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain!!!!

I'm a policy debater at Newark Tech high school with a year worth of experience. I'm new to judging but I will try to make your RFD's as detailed as possible so you can improve at debating.

Speaker point/speaking stuff:

Even though I will have your documents open, I will only flow what I hear. DO NOT SPREAD. Please remember to be clear with your speeches. I prefer clarity over speed as it will make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments.

Don't use abbreviations without telling me what they mean. Also, define words in your speech that need defining.

You'll get high speaks if you show me unique arguments. Also, I love troll debates that both teams agree on and will give great speaks, but I don't think it is necessary to discuss troll debates beforehand. Every debater should be prepared for anything, so if someone throws in a joke argument without discussing, I'll flow it the same as any other argument.

Other stuff:

I do take food bribes. I will give a certain amount of speaker points depending on the food you bring. If you manage to bring a jelly filled donut, I will give one additional speaker point. Any other food and I'll figure out what I can give.

I do like references a lot. If you mention a line or verse from a song and reference it in your rebuttal, I will give speaker points. It won't be a whole lot, but I will see what I can give for the reference. It can be in quotations.

If you manage to reference a line or verse from Sweet/I thought you wanted to dance, I will give one whole speaker point.

If you ever have a round judged by Robert Menich, tell him that he is not the best debater at Newark Tech and that Myles Chambers is. It will be hilarious.

I'm an experienced policy debate judge with some PF experience. Open to any argument as long it's properly explained.

Also, very technical and will go based on my flow.

I don't flow cross-fire unless given some theory that explains why I should. Speed reading and spreading is fine. Impact analysis and voters are a must. Organized and clean debates is a faster way to earn my vote on the ballot.

Overall I don't intervene in debates as I feel it's an educational activity for the debaters. Most importantly I wanted everyone to have fun

CURRENT THINGS WITH JAYE:

I am currently working as an assistant coach to the Newark Science debate team. I am very much indebted to debate for the person that I am today. I find debate (and especially debate rounds) to be very much a part of life. This means that I would encourage everyone to understand that the things you say in a debate round have real implications even outside of the debate round. Fellow debaters and opponents in the past, present, and future are not just obstacles, but are other people whether that is outside or inside civil society. Debate does not allow the things you say to exist in a vacuum, so as a judge, coach, educator, and a petty black man I will not tolerate or evaluate the following ideas (LIKE EVER):

RACISM GOOD/ RACISM DOES NOT EXIST

SOCIAL DEATH GOOD

STOPPING WARMING WILL SOLVE RACISM

(These are the only things that come to mind at the moment, I know and will try and add more, but understand I put these first for a reason.)

BACKGROUND THINGS WITH JAYE:

I’m a proud member of the Eastside debate team senor class of 2014. I am the closest friend with Daniel Mendes (who all of sudden became a celebrity in HS debate) and Chaz Wyche (if you don’t know about him you shouldn’t worry about it to affect my judging.). From my time on the Eastside debate team (Eastside BR) I am a member of the few teams from Newark to ever get a TOC bid (Scranton 2013) in over a decade. All my time in policy debate has been devoted to traveling, and debating in national tournaments all over the country (Scranton, Yale, Georgetown, Emory, U-Penn, NAUDL, etc). During my travels I have had Elijah Smith (CEDA AND NDT 2012 CHAMPION), Chris Randall (CEDA AND NDT NATIONAL 2013 DEBATER, and also Elijah’s partner), and Willie Johnson (CEDA 2013 FINAL ROUND JUDGE) as my coaches and most influential to my success as a debater. I am luck enough to have even judged at the college level of policy debates at tournaments such as Vermont, and West point and look forward to judging the HS level. 

DEBATE THINGS WITH JAYE:

GENERIC THING WITH JAYE:

I’ll try and be quick and painless for the people who are waiting to know how they should pref me. Now I have judged policy, critical, and performance, but I find performance to be the debates I’m truly most comfortable with. If you could not tell by the three coaches I have stated above, I am very familiar with performance rounds and by coincidence I am also a performance debater. I ran an Afro-pessimist critiques in all my national tournaments my senior year (exception Yale and Georgetown: I ran Decolonaility, there is a difference btw). At all the other the tournaments I have read at least 2 Wilderson cards in every speech I’ve given. There are other authors that I read that talk about anti-blackness, but the point is that if you are talking about black people I have probably read the books/articles they came from. Now policy is by no means something I can’t judge. No performance debaters I know have started out running performance arguments, the same is true for me that I had to learn policy debate in order to be the debater I am today so I’ll talk about the specifics of policy first. 

POLICY THINGS WITH JAYE:

TOPICALLY

• AFF

You should pick up on whether the negative will truly go for the argument, and let that choose how you will answer in the 2ac and 1ar. Reasonability is a really strong argument in front of me, but that does not excuse you for dropping any arguments that can be used to make topically important.

• NEG

I do evaluate topically. If you are going for topically you need to go hard people. I will not vote for topically if you don’t hard for me in the block. I need in round abuse, topical versions of the Aff, and voters that are going to be impacted in the round in order for me to take topically as more than a time crew you thought of for the round. If you actually do go for topically in the 2nr (which I would be beyond shock and a little impressed if you do it well) to make me vote on topically you need to go for this argument for the whole five minutes. Topically is a prior question in the round it would only make sense to just go for topically in the 2nr. The way I see topically used now as a time screw for a very minimal infraction of the Affirmative that is probably resolved through reasonability.   

THEORY

• AFF

 The best thing you could do for me would to try and set up theory in cross x. A simple “What is the status of the off case position?” would help me to at least prepare for a theory debate. I also like theory on a separate flow so that needs to be in the order at the beginning of the speech.  That helps me evaluate the separate offense and defense on that debate. Theory like topically needs to have same time spent on it in order for me to vote for this argument. Your tagline will not be enough for me.  

• NEG

It is of the utmost importance for you to set this argument up in cross x for me if you can. Theory should also be on a separate flow, and similar to what I said on the Aff. You need to spend time on his to have me vote on this.  

FRAMEWORK

• AFF

For the Affirmative the framework is really helpful to how I should evaluate. I can guest that a utilitarian framework is the way to evaluate your impacts or you can tell that utilitarianism is the framework, and give some comparative analysis if the negative has their own framework.  A role of the ballot and judge is something you also want in any 2ac because it makes sense.

• NEG

I’m talking about the “Resolved means a USFG topical policy action”. This type of frame is the scorn of my life. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard this argument. I WILL CRINGE EVERY TIME I HEAR THIS ARGUEMNT. I will unfortunately listen to the argument, but no one will like this debate. I believe that you should probably just run the topical version of the plan against whatever Aff you didn’t care to engage with. You can still weight all the education and ground arguments, but we now have a better debate, and I’ll be a lot happier.

AFFFIRMATIVE

All Policy affirmatives NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE INTERNAL LINK AND THE IMPACT OF EACH ADVANTAGE. I also need a clear line to the SOLVENCY AND HOW THAT WORKS FOR EACH ADVANTAGE. The Aff should tell a story and have a good flow to it. This means the Aff should not be you trying to read as many cards as you can in the 1ac. The 1ac should be slow on tags to contribute to the idea of telling a story. Even policy Affs can be creative. Don’t be afraid to something other than nuclear war/extinction and have some cool advantage with a framework behind how I should evaluate the advantage. The best example of this I can tell you is probably structural violence advantage that stops something like police brutally, but this will require work. I will be happy to see that effort in a debate round and be sure to recognize you in some way for that work.   (Probably a speaker higher)

DISADVANTAGES

They are ok, but make sure think is a clear link to the Aff. You also need to tell me how to evaluate this impact in round. The answer is YES! I would like a specific impact calculus for the round that compares all the impacts in the round.

COUNTER PLANS

If the counter plan doesn’t make any sense after the permutation then I will probably not vote for the counter plan. It needs to complete. That means a net benefit and a reason why the Aff is a bad idea. I believe that even if the counter plan solves the Aff it does not mean game over. The negative still needs a reason why the Aff is a bad idea on top of the net benefit or I will just vote Aff on the permutation. 

CRITICAL THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

This for the Affirmative that have a plan text, but have a very philosophical background:

YOUR AWSOME 

• CRITQUE

I LOVE CRITQUES, BUT IF YOU DON”T KNOW THE LITERATURE I WILL NOT LIKE YOU. This simply means if you read a critique you should have picked a book and read. Not just the introduction, but have read the book. You can easily tell an experience K debater from someone who is just beginning. I find that people can earn high speaks here, but with all high speaks they come to those who have a working knowledge of the hell they are talking about. Know Your Stuff. Links need to be as clear as possible. The better the link story, the better the speaker points. The alternative needs to solve the Aff or resolve the essential question posed in the debate. Make sure I know what the world of the alternative looks like. If you say that you end the work I need to know what the process looks like because my ballot will final end the world and I’ll take great pride in that.  

PREFORMANCE THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

As stated above I’m very comfortable with this argument. Be sure to have some clear connection to the topic. IF YOU RUN THIS ARGUMENT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SUN SHINES (not really tho)

• NEGATIVE

I do believe that the negative can also have performances. These are really trick to deploy in a round sometime, but when done correctly they are one the most powerful arguments in debate. I prefer these debates to happen when the Aff gives there performance, and he neg provides a counter performance/methodology. These argument hold a special place in my heart as this was the only I ran on the negative of my senior. There is nothing special you get from me by reading this argument but that shouldn’t hinder you from reading this argument in front on me anyway.    

END OF THNGS WITH JAYE

Nathaniel.Sasenarine@iCloud.com

Hello! I was a high school policy debater approximately 20 years ago, and while I am new to judging Public Forum, I bring with me a deep respect for debate as an educational activity that fosters critical thinking, effective communication, and civic engagement.

I judge strictly off the flow and prioritize clarity, structure, and warranted analysis in argumentation. While I do my best to keep up with technical debates, please ensure your arguments are clearly articulated and well-explained—especially in weighing mechanisms and comparative analysis. This not only helps me evaluate the round more effectively but also contributes to a more educational and accessible debate experience for everyone involved.

I make a conscious effort to remain completely objective, and I strive to avoid any personal bias or intervention. My role is not to insert my opinions, but to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters.

I volunteer my time to support the growth of this activity and to contribute to the development of future leaders and advocates. I’m always grateful to be part of a space that challenges students to think critically and engage respectfully.

Best of luck to all competitors—I look forward to hearing your arguments!

P.S. I dislike rude and offensive individuals. Please present yourselves professionally.

Hi, my name is Enilda. I'm a policy debater @ Newark Tech.

You can refer to me as Enilda or judge, I go by she/her pronouns

Add me to the chain: enilda.t27@gmail.com

tech>truth vv

This means I'll evaluate arguments based on what's presented, not on my personal beliefs

I'm okay with open or closed cross-ex

** I don't flow cross

--------

For this middle school tournament, I understand debate can be hard, but just honestly, have fun, remember to be respectful to your opponents, and if you do something that'll make me laugh or make a brainrot joke, I'll give you +.5 speaks.

In Round Stuff:

I won't vote on new arguments mentioned in the 2AC or 2NC/1NR unless it's a theory argument.Please make sure to EXTEND previous arguments, not bring up new ones.

I'm okay with speed/spreading, but I prefer clarity over speed, but I can't stress this enough: Please SLOW DOWN on analytics and taglines. Also, don't forget to signpost so I can keep up with what is being read in the speeches. I'll yell clear if I can't understand your spreading, if you don't acknowledge my clear, and don't slow down, I wont flow the argument.

If an argument is dropped, please make sure to explain the significance of that argument and why I should vote for you.

In your rebuttals, tell me why I should vote for you and why you're winning the round, and don't forget to extend your case arguments because if you don't, they'll count as dropped.

After Round Stuff:

I give feedback, and if you have any questions, just ask me after the round is over or email me !!

-------

Hello my name is Amir and I am a current Varsity Policy debater for North Star Academy.

My email is: amiryounger197@gmail.com

For debate, I go in with a neutral mind. I want to be persuaded by your argument backed by a personal understanding of what you're stating

I will assume whatever is said to be true until stated otherwise(this puts a big burden on you aff coming out the block)

For speaking, please project your voice and speak coherently.

I am ok with all types of arguments as long as they're well-developed, persuasive, and logistical.

I love K and Theory so be it they're relevant.

Make me understand why you won based on the debate. You should make it clear you win, I do not want to judge intervene.

Speaker points will rely mainly on rebuttals and good debate ethos.