NOVICES:

Currently a Senior at Stuyvesant High School who has done LD for 4 years on the local and national circuit. Email: henryji327@gmail.com

+1.0 speaks if you can find both partial derivatives of z=cos(x)·e^y+yx^2+xy^3-x+27

+1.0 speaks if you can prove given c=|a|b+|b|a, where a, b, c are non-zero vectors, then c is a bisector of the angle between a and b

+1.0 speaks if you can find the volume between the xy-plane and f(x,y)=cos x + sin y in the region [0,pi]x[0,pi]

how do i evaluate a round?

i look for the highest layer in the round, determine who has won that layer, and then vote on that. if this fails to give me a reason to vote for one side, i move down the layers until i find a winner or we're at presumption.

if you're confused about anything in the round ask me and ill try to explain. also if you have homework you need help with u can ask me.

if you want to have a progressive round with spreading and stuff you need to have your opponent say yes to it first. if they dont and you go into a spec shell at 300wpm anyways, i won't evaluate it.

you get low speaks if you are mean to your opponent, me, or anyone else

Varsity Paradigm

Quick Prefs:

2-Theory (Any kind)

2-Phil

3-K

4-High Theory K/weird phil

5-LARP/Tricks*

senior @ stuyvesant high school who has done LD for 4 years now

email: henryji327@gmail.com

defaults (easily changed):

no rvis, dtd, ci

p+p negates

I will listen to anything if it's not racist, sexist, etc. The prefs are simply how comfortable i feel in evaluating the arguments based on my past experience. I suck ass at flowing so slow down please-if I can't hear it, I can't vote on it.

LARP: barely did any and never did any LARP v LARP so my confidence in evaluating these rounds very low

Theory: love it of any kind and read it a decent amount

Phil: Read a decent amount (mostly hobbes, levinas, existentialism) and i'm okay with most basic ones like pragmatism, but if it's really esoteric, like heidigger I probably won't know it as well. explaination is key

K: Read Ks a decent amount, mainly cap, orientalism, weheliye, set col, asian.

K-affs: also read this a bit, but I will admit that atp I am a bit biased to T-framework. I'd say like 65-35 so do with that what you will. will try to be as tab as possible but um yeah

Tricks: i'm bad at flowing so you run a risk of just me not hearing them but ill evaluate them if i hear them i guess

Washed senior at Stuyvesant High School. I did LD but haven't debated in a long time. Just treat me like a lay judge.

+1.0 speaks if you get me a piece of candy

Your cards should be cut properly and I want them. Preferably as a word doc - email at elin40@stuy.edu.

Clash with your opponent’s framework/arguments and make sure to weigh

Don't spread too fast or i'll dock speaks

You get low speaks if you are mean to your opponent, me, or anyone else

Hello!

I am a junior at Lexington High School, I've competed in Varsity PF for 1 year and am currently competing in both LD and PF this year. I am still actively competing, so you can treat me like a tech judge. You can add me to any email chains or speech docs: kennethlu7@gmail.com

General Info (tl;dr):

In general, I'm fine with you reading any argument in the round as long as everyone in the round is being respectful and people aren't being overly heated or problematic. Just remember - at the end of the day, it's just a debate tournament.

I'm pretty comfortable with speed but you should definitely be making sure everything you say is clear and comprehensible. I'm fine with spreading but if I don't catch anything, it's not going to be evaluated on the flow. I will also shout "Clear" or "Slow" if you are going excessively fast.

Tech > truth - I'll evaluate any argument on the flow as long as it isn't problematic in any way. In terms of what counts as problematic - just use common sense, if you have to think about it, it probably is. I'll vote off whatever arguments win on the flow.

Speaker points are based on articulation and just being a nice person. If you articulate your arguments in a way that is easy to understand and treat everyone in the round nicely, you'll probably get good speaks.

Feel free to ask me before round on any of my preferences and after the round if there was anything about the round you had questions on. I'm always free to clarify anything you're confused about and help you in any way possible.

Generally keep your own time, I'll probably be timing as well, but it will be your responsibility to keep time. I'll probably cut you off if you are grossly over the time limit though.

If you are debating novice PF: Please don't run progressive arguments unless both sides agree to it and even then I would prefer if you don't.

General argumentation stuff:

I evaluate the round layer by layer - if there's theory, K's, or anything pre-fiat, that is evaluated first unless I am told otherwise. I then move on to substance by evaluating weighing, then looking at links and clear warrants.

Extend and collapse in the back half of the round - Make sure you are always extending through only your strongest pieces of offense or defense in the last few speeches. You probably won't have time to extend through everything in your first few speeches and if the last few speeches end up being "extend through my first contention, the Smith 13 card, ...", I probably won't evaluate those extensions. You need to be at least bringing up all the warranting from uniqueness to impact.

Always weigh - You should be telling me how to view the round and which impacts to prioritize, I can't evaluate a round if both teams have access to impacts and don't weigh at all. It ends up just being based on strength of link, so it's your job to make sure that you tell me how to vote.

Evidence debates - I won't look at evidence unless it becomes a major point in deciding the round. For sharing evidence, I'm fine with whatever is convenient for both teams, speech doc, email chain, whatever works. If there does end up being miscut or power tagged evidence that the other team points out, you will lose speaks and potentially the ballot if the other team gives a strong enough warrant.

I won't flow cross, so if anything important is conceded, you have to bring it up in a speech.

I would prefer to see you line by lining down the flow so you touch on all the points of the debate.

You should be signposting so that it is clear where you are on the flow. You shouldn't be jumping around on the flow and making me confused where to flow which argument, otherwise I might not evaluate an argument how you intended or I might miss it altogether.

You should be reading off evidence, I would prefer it if you read tag, citation, then body.

I presume Neg - If somehow, the entire debate has no offense standing for either side at the round, I presume neg unless either team makes a presumption argument telling me otherwise. Rounds probably shouldn't come down to this if teams are debating reasonably though.

Specific Arguments:

Theory - I don't have an extensive history of debating theory, but I have some experience with it and am fine with evaluating it. Unless otherwise told, I default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater. I have a high threshold for evaluating frivolous theory - you can run it and I am fine with voting off of it, just know that I have a pretty low threshold for responses to these types of theory arguments. Remember to do standard stuff like weighing between standards and extending through the shell in every round.

Kritiks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

If you have a well developed IVI like an evidence challenge IVI, I can vote off of it as long as it is well warranted.

I am fine with prefiat framework - just remember to include cards and warrants to justify them. I have decent experience with things like general SV/Fem framework.

I am fine with you reading K's - I have some experience debating them but I don't have extensive knowledge on K-lit, so you might need to do some more work in warranting and explaining it, and you should know your lit base. As always, tell me how to evaluate the K, for example in a K v. K debate.

You need to tell me what I should evaluate first, otherwise I evaluate theory first, then K's.

Phil/FW - I don't have that much knowledge on philosophy and have limited experience in framework debates, so err on overexplaining. I can still evaluate these sorts of rounds, it just means I have less experience with them so debate these at your own risk. Make sure you have real warrants for framework justifications.

Tricks - I have very little experience with these, so if you want me to vote of them, they better be really well explained. If you are trying to spread through a million blippy one liners that aren't fleshed out arguments, I definitely won't be voting on them.

Policy/Trad/Substance PF debate - these are the sorts of debates that I have the most experience with. Nothing much to say here, just do what you normally do and follow the general argumentation stuff I have on the top.

PF specifics:

Considering I will probably be judging novice, I would really prefer if you don't read progressive arguments in novice PF. Especially if it's clear that something like one team has an extensive background on theory and is reading it against first-time debaters is happening, I will at the very least dock speaks and you could lose the ballot depending on the situation. If both teams are fine with progressive arguments, I'm fine with evaluating those sorts of rounds. I am completely fine with you reading something like an SV framework, it's just arguments like K's and theory that I would prefer seeing less of at this level. I also believe that a lot of more progressive arguments such as K's don't have much of a place in PF given shorter speech times and structure of the style, but I am still willing to vote off it.

Frontlining should be happening in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary, weighing and collapsing should happen as early as possible, there can be a little by 2nd rebuttal and should definitely happen by 1st and 2nd summary. I won't evaluate new responses, so all your arguments and implications should be on the flow by summary.

I will evaluate the round based on the flow, but I would prefer to see a clear narrative at the end.

LD specifics:

I'm fine with you reading whatever you want, I have a bit less experience with LD as I just started debating it this year, but I'm pretty familiar with most common argument types on the circuit.

You should be summing up the main voters and telling me how to vote on the major points of clash by the end.

I'm a Senior at Lexington High School and have debated for four years. I have experience in LD and PF, but prefer traditional LD.

Email chain (add both): feomorozov@gmail.com, 24stu189@lexingtonma.org

Novices:

Read whatever you would like as long as you explain well.

To win the ballot: weigh and crystallize. Tell me which arguments matter and why they matter. Do not leave connections between arguments to be made by me. Explicitly link your defense to the argument it is intended against.

Speaker points:

I intend for your speaker points to reflect how well you spoke rhetorically in the round. My criteria are as follows.

• Speak passionately and persuasively. Emphasize what is important, engage me.

• Present your arguments (offense and defense) in a logical order. Do not leave it up to me to make connections between your arguments for you.

• Dominate cross. This is one of the best ways to boost your speaks. Be assertive. Your opponent's case should be in shambles after such a cross, find contradictions, use counter examples etc. That being said, do not be a prick, unnecessarily interrupt, or be cocky. These are not persuasive traits in a speaker and your points will reflect it.

• Make intuitive arguments and use historical examples to prove/disprove points.

I look forward to judging your round.

I have been debating for 3 years. I have a good understanding of the topics and the arguments. Debate how you want to. Make sure to be fair and respectful.

POLICY:

Ks

I don't have a problem with Ks. Make sure they are coherent. Telling a good story and making the links as clear as possible will help you.

DIfferent Arguments:

I don’t have a problem at all with cross-applying arguments from different flows. I am especially fond of contradictions. If you hear the opposing team contradicting themselves to try to make a point to me, point it out. It will definitely help you. If an argument on one flow makes sense on another, cross-apply it and explain how the argument makes sense for the flows.

Disadvantages:

A clear link story with consistent and extended defense and extensions will help you win on disadvantages.

Counterplans:

To win on CPs, make the net benefit clear. It’s great to have a disad that the Affirmative links to and have a counterplan where the net benefit is that you don’t link to the disad.

PICs:

If the Affirmative side doesn’t make a PICs bad argument then PICs are fine. If the Affirmative team makes a PICs bad argument, then to win on the PIC, you have to defend that PICs aren’t bad.

LD:

Framework:

Make sure to extend it as much as possible in all your speeches. Make it clear how you link to the framework and how you fit it better than your opponent.

Values:

Make sure to extend your value in the round. Make sure to explain why it is the best value for the judge to evaluate the round with. Extend all of these arguments in your speeches.

hi! I'm Sonali (she/they)

Harrison High School '21, Cornell University '25

for speech docs: sonali.nicola@gmail.com & harrison.debate.team@gmail.com (use both pls)

free palestine also I hate util

tl;dr pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks

Accommodations & Accessibility

accessibility is very important to me! please tell me & ur opponent any accommodations u may need before the round. it's a good idea to share these in writing in case there is an accessibility issue in round that u want to make an arg about, but expressing them verbally is also great. PLEASE slow and clear ur opponent as many times as u need. please disclose any content areas u don't feel comfortable discussing before round (to me & ur opponent) and give content warnings

also just in general, the nicer and more accommodating u are, the better speaks you'll get. that doesn't mean let ur opponent walk all over u, but it does mean try to genuinely answer their questions & be kind. I love sass but there is a difference between being sassy and being mean :/

general notes

I graduated 3 years ago and don't coach so tournaments are my only exposure to the topic (read: idk nuances of the topic). I'm fine w speed as long as you're clear (I will slow & clear you as much as I need - I have a processing disorder). also, record your speeches for online debate (also not a bad idea to record them for in-person tbh)

stolen from Rebecca Anderson's paradigm: please stop spreading against lay opponents. It does not make me want to vote for you. probably a low-point win at best so it is not in your best interest [edited for grammar]

• if u can't beat a lay opponent without spreading, u prob don't deserve to win

I pay attention to cx but don't flow it - very important for establishing links, violations, etc. I think if ur going to read any K or shell, you need to ask Qs in cx to solidify/get more links

I prob won't know the nuances of the topic so make sure to explain ur empirics and how ur theory of power functions in relation to the topic

I read mostly Ks and performance in high school so that's what I'm familiar with. I read a lot of disability (Sick Woman Theory, Spoon Theory), gender rights, and racial equity args

I don't care if ur topical or not

I love trad debate! this is my second favorite type of debate after K/Performance.

I guess I'm fine judging LARPy stuff. I do hate util & extinction scenarios but I'll vote on it if there is literally no other option (please don't make me vote on extinction). there are just so many good arguments against util & Singer was a eugenicist. LARP debates are some of the most uninspiring debates I've ever had and ur speaks prob won't be amazing if the round is j LARP

if I didn't learn anything about phil & high theory from four years of debate I promise you I will not learn about it from a 40-minute round. would not recommend reading phil & high theory in front of me. also, the majority of phil authors have expressly racist/sexist/homophobic views/their theories justify abuse of minorities, which I do not think belong in debate. I am very persuaded by reps Ks against phil authors.

the burden of proof is on u to explain ur theory to me I'm not gonna do research to understand u

don't read tricks & friv theory in front of me xoxo

I'm like 70% truth & 30% tech

• ur not gonna convince me the sky is green and I won't vote on it
• but following the structure of a T shell makes my life easier in terms of flowing and deciding

disclosure is prob good unless u have a good reason to not disclose. using the wiki is good unless u have a good reason not to use the wiki

Framework:

I love framework debates (NOT T-FW)! I think it's weird when the neg debater reads a FW and then doesn't engage w the aff's FW in the NC. don't do this in front of me - ur better off j conceding to the aff's FW and spending more time on different args

I also think it's a major missed opportunity to not spend a good amount of time in ur rebuttals extending ur FW and explaining 1. why ur winning FW and 2. why ur opponent has no offense under ur FW. if ur opponent is winning four neg offs that don't link to ur FW and ur winning FW, idc about the neg offs. spend time on that in ur speeches for good speaks

Specifics on Theory:

I will always prefer issues that would normally read as theory to be read as a K (with a drop the debater implication/alternative) because I have always been better at flowing and understanding Ks better than theory. but I know this is unpopular so I won't hold this against u if u don't do this.

if u are reading theory, make sure to read paradigm issues (seems obvious but you'd be surprised). I generally think reasonability and RVIs good unless u tell me otherwise. I don't think fairness exists, and I don't think debate is a game. I'd prefer if u impacted the shell to accessibility (I think that is the most important thing in debate, with education as a close second). I guess I'd vote on fairness if both sides agree that fairness is the end goal of the shell tho

stolen from Hertzig's paradigm: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it). [edited for grammar]

a note on how I judge:

I always loved affirming when I debated. I love when aff debaters just go for the aff against a bunch of neg offs and use the args in the aff to take out the neg's offense. it shows that ur aff is really well written and thought-out and also shows that u know what ur case says and how to use it. if u can do this well, ur speaks will reflect how happy I am :)

ON THE OTHER SIDE don't do this if ur neg. there is no point in reading an NC and then using the same args u j read against the AC - it's a waste of time. diversify ur args

in conclusion pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks

Raj Pattabi

I am a parent Judge and excited to be part of this judging process.

What and how I judge are as follows

• Assess the strength of arguments that includes the clarity of the thesis, quality of evidence, and logical coherence
• How well debaters respond to counterarguments and whether they maintain a logical and consistent position
• Consider the persuasiveness of debaters, presentation style, research and evidence
• Assess the debaters’ cross-examination skills, overall delivery and style

Info

Hello, my name is Sophie Shaw (She/her).

I am a junior at Lexington High School, and this is my second year in LD debate. I have competed on both the national and local circuit.

For Novices

Please speak clearly and signpost before and during your round (give a roadmap before your speeches). If I don't know where to flow a specific argument, you run the risk of me not flowing it at all.

I have the most experience with typical lay cases (ie contentions) but I am also familiar with Ks such as Afropess and Fem. Ultimately, you can run anything as long as your opponent is comfortable with it.

Value criterion holds the highest layer in the debate, so you must win under your framework or prove why your framework outweighs your opponent's.

Please WEIGH and give VOTERS in your last speech! It is best if you collapse on a few key arguments in your later speeches that you can defend and develop well.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc.

I always disclose the ballot if the tournament allows me to.

Please keep your own time with a timer that rings rather than a stopwatch. There is nothing more awkward than me or your opponent having to stop you mid-speech because you are 20 seconds over your time.

Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round, and you can send questions to my email at 25stu519@lexingtonma.org.

Good luck and have fun!!!

For LD: ALWAYS reference back to your values/VC throughout the debate, otherwise, they are meaningless.

For PF: Your weighing should make sense, throwing off random words like magnitude/scope/probability without context or reference back to your arguments will not win you a ballot.

For All: No spreading please, Signposting is always appreciated, and the off-time road maps should be short and concise (if you decide to use them I have no preference). Otherwise, I'm open to all arguments and evidence.

Always weigh, help me vote.

Hi y'all - I'm a junior at Stuyvesant High School and I've been doing LD for three years now. I primarily read policy positions with the (very) occasional K or NC. I’m decent at debate, got 2 bids, not the best flower

quick prefs

1 - policy

1 - policy v k

2 - ks

3 - kvk

3 - theory

3 - Phil

5 - tricks

Your cards should be cut properly and I want them - email at dzheng50@stuy.edu.

Tech > truth, conceded args with complete claim warrants impacts are automatically true and I’ll treat it as so. Key word: COMPLETE WARRANTS. My favorite positions to eval are in depth policy debates and clash debates. Embedded weighing is fine but do the work for me.

good with flex prep

im not the best flower - I flow on laptop and you should be as clear as possible. Im very expressive when flowing

Don't steal prep, time yourselves, and have fun! Don’t do anything offensive - depending on the level of severity, first offense is tanked speaks and repeated offense is a hot L with the lowest speaks possible.

terminal defense/zero risk is possible and I’m more sympathetic to it than most - willing to pull trigger on presumption given a well executed case 2nr

link/internal level analysis > impact analysis

Turns case is the best weighing mechanism, followed by timeframe

Don't spread unless your opponent is okay with it. (For novices and JV)

Theory defaults

dta, no rvis, competing interps

p and p negate

default TT

T > theory > role of the ballot > fw > substance

For speaks:

be nice

impact turns (if executed well)

Good ev comparison

Good strategy

Case 2nrs