Edgemont PF Intersquad Novice RR

2018 — Scarsdale, NY/US

Jack Friedman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jacob Kang Paradigm

I wrote this kinda in a rush so don't pay too much attention to minor errors

I'm a flow judge

speed is fine as long as you are clear

1st summary doesn't need to extend defense except frontlines

weighing would be super nice -- otherwise I default on strength of link, impacts by themselves, etc

idc about cross -- if something happens then bring it up in speech for me to weigh it :)


Iris Lin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nikhil Malik Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alex Mandadjiev Paradigm


Sid Nair Paradigm


Sammy Richter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ibby Salimi Paradigm

Debate well

Weigh for me

Collapse on arguments

Don’t be mean in cross, if you talk over others and don’t let your opponents respond, you’ll speaks will drop

Please signpost, if you know that you aren’t the best at signposting, just give me an off time roadmap

Most definitions are unnecessary, please don’t make me listen to debates like ones over the definition of the word should, I know what the word means and you are probably both right and those debate aren’t fun to listen too

Be conscious of the implications of what you argue for. Don’t say something that is offense to people

Yukiho Semimoto Paradigm

Ridge specific:

1. No don't shake my hand

2. Please keep your own time

3. Go in before I'm there unless you're the second flight

Contact info: yukiho.semimoto@gmail.com or Yukiho Semimoto on fb messenger

I have debated for Edgemont PF for the past five years. I also lead Beyond Resolved (beyondresolved.org), and I think I'll put a self-promo because what we do is very cool: we fight for women and gender minorities in debate and pioneer projects like a free coaching service to help improve the financial accessibility of debate. Feel free to check us out and ask if you want our stickers. More importantly, if you ever feel unsafe at a tournament and need someone to talk to or a support system (e.g. you need someone to go to tab with you to report problematic instances) I am always more than happy to help!

As a debater, I am faster and more tech than usual NE debate but stylistically still prefer better warranted, more strategic, and fewer arguments in round. I am a huge proponent of paraphrasing (not that I'm not open to paraphrase theory) and I think crossfires are useful.

Overall, I like debate a lot!, and thus will do my very best to make this an enjoyable experience. If you want to have a serious round, I will be a serious judge! If you want a fun light-hearted round, I will be a fun light-hearted judge !

If you want any clarification on the mess of a jargon paradigm below, please feel free to ask before the round. Just don't ask "do you have any preferences" because I will give you time to read my paradigm, it clearly delineates my preferences in round.

I prioritize safety in round.

This means

a) I have no tolerance for problematic debaters or debaters that are racist/ ableist/ sexist/ or discriminatory in any way shape or form. I am not afraid to drop debaters and speaks for abuse in round.

b) I require content warnings for arguments that discuss sensitive topics (hi I will list sensitive topics here: e.g. forms of sexual harassment/ assault, gun violence, suicide). I believe that debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and the benefits of discussion no longer exists when the discussion at hand is a potentially triggering topic. The content warning should come in the form of "is everyone in this room comfortable with us reading an argument that discusses x topic (with description of how detailed you will go-- just a mention of the topic? descriptions of it?) ?"

If you are confused about the series of topics that might require content warnings, and how to execute it properly, please feel free to ask before the round or before a speech.

Respect your opponent's wishes. If they say no to your request to read an argument about a sensitive argument, it's a no. Not reading content warnings or not respecting the wishes of your opponents warrants an automatic loss and severely low speaks.

c) I am willing to accommodate the round. Please ask if you need anything from me! Take off your shoes if you want!

d) I am okay with your partner maving the round if they do not feel safe in the round. I am pretty sure NSDA allows a maximum of 2 rounds allowed for a maving round per partnership at a bid tournament before they are disqualified from breaking to begin with.

e) I require all people in the room to respect the pronouns that might be provided by tab. Blatant disregard for this will result in severely low speaks or even a loss.


I will never reject an argument on face (exception: arguments like racism good), but the threshold of me believing in responses to an argument goes down the more silly your argument is. I am generally tech> truth and I do not intervene unless it's a last resort.

You are free to curse in round as long as it's not derogatory, or aimed at me or your opponents or a specific group of people. Your speaks won't be affected.


Everything in FF needs to be in summary with the exception of defense in first summary.

If first ff has a turn that was unextended in first summary and it's unresponded to, it counts as defense not offense i.e. a reason to not vote for your opponents but not a reason to vote for you.

K's/ Theory/ Progressive arguments

1) I have debated it, ran it, and judged it but there is no assurance that I can evaluate progressive arguments properly. I still don't really know what pre-fiat is so I expect a progressive debate to be well-warranted not just throwing around jargon (e.g. "OUR ARGUMENT IS PREFIAT AND ALWAYS COMES FIRST" does not fly by me especially because Pre-fiat has no definition in my brain)

2) ask your opponents if they prefer paragraph or shell form theory and are okay with excessive jargon in K’s. Blatantly disregarding their wishes can result in low speaks. This is just to prevent teams from reading progressive arguments with lots of jargon to win against inexperienced teams.

Offensive overviews in second rebuttal

I, don't, like, them, unless, they're, implicated, well i.e. it shouldn't be another contention read in rebuttal it must have an implication to their case other than a "our impact to this DA is bigger :) ". DA's that are acceptable are those that either have a similar link level argument or an impact level argumet-- otherwise, don't do it, your speaks will be severely tanked.

i am receptive to first summary responses that offensive overviews are abusive because there is no time to respond to a disguised contention in summary efficiently -- drop the argument to unskew the round or drop the debater to set norms.

Defaulting NEG/ status quo

I don't do this. I default team that lost coin flip because I think that they had more work to do to get the debate to a level playing field after losing the coin flip due to random chance. If there is no coin flip, I default first speaking team because I think PF puts first speaking teams at a structural disadvantage.

Calling for evidence:

I only do it if

- a team asks me to

- it's impossible to make a decision without calling for the evidence

If it is, miscut, then I reserve the right to not evaluate the card and give you low speaks.


I'm probably not going to listen to cross.

I, like, good, crossfires but it does not affect my flow, unless a concession is made I guess (but obviously like every argument in crossfire, you need to make these arguments in your other speeches).

You may skip grand cross for 3 minutes of free prep if both teams agree, I guess.


I think speaks statistically favor white male figures in debate so speaks will be based on your strategical decisions in round, coverage, how good your arguments were, plus persuasion. Crossfire affects your speaks as well.

Yes, ask me/ message me after round if you want to know your speaks and you are scared about screws. Hopefully the answer isn't "I don't know yet!"

Don't run 30 speaks theory on me.


If you are spreading, make sure that your opponents are okay with it and send an email chain/ or flash your opponents and I *before* the speech.

Generally, I am okay with debates that are faster so long as the line by line and signposting isn't messy.


I generally give a 10 second grace period after your speech time ends and if you're that jerk that holds the timer one second after their time ends I will roll my eyes. I'm most likely keeping my own time anyways so chillax dawg.

If you want me to be a lay judge, absolutely.

If you want to read paradigms that are similar to my views of debate, read Caspar Arbeeny's (my coach).

If you believe that any part of my paradigm is unfair, please talk to me before the round and we can discuss how I can accommodate the paradigm to this specific round. This paradigm is a result of what I think my role as a judge and am always open to change in perspective.

Shyla Singh Paradigm

be a nice debater

don't be annoying

Stanley Yang Paradigm

I am currently debating on the VPF circuit. This is also a generic flow judge paradigm.


Medium speed. Tech over truth. Don't need defense in 1st summary but if you want to extend turns or offensive overviews you need them in summary. Extend and frontline. Collapse. Weigh. You'll probably win if you do.

Most important of all: Have fun.

Stylistic Things:

Don't speak too fast.

I've never had any experience with theory

Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy anything just about anything.

Warrant everything. I won't extend any card that isn't warranted. Good warranting can also beat carded evidence.

Signposting and structure is really important. I like roadmaps and numbered responses.

Read terminalized impacts. Don't tell there's a 3% decrease in the GDP, tell me 30,000 jobs will be lost or 3,500 fall below the poverty line each year.

I'm a HUGE fan of turns.

I'm a pretty expressive judge. I nod when I like what I'm hearing.

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

Specific Speeches


Overviews: If you want to extend an overview to FF as either defense or offense, it needs to be in summary, even if it is 1st summary.

I'm fine with a 1-3 split in rebuttal, but there needs to be time spent frontlining in second rebuttal. 2-2 split is preferable.


No new in the 2. I'll stop flowing if it's new in the 2. That means no new responses/arguments/evidence (Unless you're using them to frontline in summary) in summary/FF.

Parallelism: I won't evaluate things that are in FF that aren't in summary. I should be able to draw a straight arrow from your summary to your FF.

Turns: Extend them. Frontline them. I love them. You have been warned.

Summary: Frontline. Don't just talk about an argument, make sure to extend carded links/impacts. Don't extend every single argument. If you want to extend turns, they need to be in both summary and FF.

1st Summary: Don't need defense. 1-2 responses on each contention is good, but not necessary.

2nd Summary: Defense needs to be in here. Don't try to read it in FF if it's not in summary.

Weighing: Comparative weighing is really important. Interact with your opponent's impacts at the end of the day and give me clear cut comparison on why your impact matters more. I'm usually compelled by good probability analysis. If both teams don't give me enough comparative weighing, then I just weigh the impacts myself.


I don't flow or listen to cross. What this basically means is you're not going to be able to make new points during crossfire or grand cross to save yourself. The best use of your time during cross is to ask clarifying questions.


Usually based on flow content.

Being funny will raise up your speaks by 1 point.

Anything offensive will drop your speaks down to a 0 immediately.


If you want me to call for a card, you can quickly bring it up during a speech.

If the card is not cited correctly, I'm going to have no choice but to drop it. If it's slightly misconstrued, I'll have to drop it and your speaks by 5 points. If you completely misconstrue it, I'll drop your speaks to 0, and depending on how important to the my decision it was, I might drop you if it was played any part in deciding.

That's the end of this unnecessarily long paradigm. Remember to have fun and don't stress. I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. I personally have enjoyed debating on the circuit a ton and I hope you'll have fun too.