Alex Rivera

  • Paradigm
  • Record
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 21 July 2022 10:57 AM EDT

CX

CX @ Newton High School 2012 - 2016

NFA LD @ WKU 2016 - 2020

Email: Alex.mckenzie.rivera@gmail.com

Debate at its core is a game of strategy and persuasion. If your arguments are strategic and persuasive, they are a fine path to the ballot. Paradigms can overly restrict that game and force you into a strategy you are less comfortable with, therefore my paradigm probably only matters in close rounds - if you decimate someone on an argument that I despise (ASPEC), I won't arbitrarily throw it from the debate (although I may look for others ways you won the debate first). But know that my opinions about arguments will start to influence my decisions when claims are more robustly tested.
Speaks: They are rewarded based on bold strategic maneuvers, clever argumentation, persuasiveness, quality time allocation, showing a commitment to good research, and not saying things that are egregiously offensive.

You Should Read: DAs, Condo CPs, T, Ks, Case Defense, Impact Turns, and Good Impacts.

You Can Read: Non-T AFFs, Delay CP Bad Theory, Consult CP Bad Theory, and I guess ESPEC.

Don't Read: RVIs, Non-Resolutional AFFs, Slimy Spikes, Bad Impacts supported by an old structural violence framing card, and basically most Random Theory Arguments.

Util is trutil. It is hard to push me to ignore larger death tolls unless you have material defense.

Kritiks have the highest ceiling but lowest floor for me - I do not enjoy judging "tagline"/"buzzword" debates where you haven't thought about these arguments for more than 3 seconds and Kritiks are starting to be the biggest perpetrator of this for me. If you can't, for example, describe the relationship between humanism and the violence it produces it feels the same as a debater who can't explain how recent events in Ukraine interact with their older Baltic war card.

Longer Opinions

Where my decision begins: the ballot rewards a win to the better debater. The better debater is the person who convinced me that the resolution was either desirable or not desirable through superior argumentation/persuasion. Arguments that do not answer the question of the resolution are almost always illogical and I do not find them particularly compelling. For example, a "control F" word kritik of some phrase in a card is not a logical answer to the resolution, it's an evidence indict, but a word PIC that puts offense on a certain word or phrase in the plan text is logical to me because it disproves the desirability of the plan's answer to the resolution.

Speed: Blipping through analytics with no clarity, pen time, or sign posting is an easy way for me to miss key arguments. My ability to keep up with incredibly fast debates is determined by how many rounds I've judged on the topic.

Kritiks: If you are interested in specific link arguments and well thought out alternatives, I will be one of the better judges for you on these arguments. I tend to read a lot of literature in my spare time that will be relevant, unless you are venturing into pure metaphysics, abstract aesthetics, or heavy ethics. If your link to a big stick heg AFF is a dusty edelman 95 state bad link card, you're in a rough spot. I believe that links are the only way to describe how the alt relates to the affirmative. The more general your links are, the easier it is for the AFF to beat you on contextual nuance.

DAs: They win debates. Terminal defense can exist, (a card that says "the midterms happened yesterday" against a midterms DA is terminal defense for example).

T: Based on the evidentiary merit of your shell, I am usually pretty into T debates. Although technical superiority matters, a persuasive vision for the topic to hang my hat on matters almost as much.

Case: I am somewhat of a case connoisseur. It is an underdeveloped skill that often make or breaks rounds. You always need offense to win, although it doesn't have to be much if your case debate is really clean. Terminal defense can exist, but won't trigger presumption.

CPs: Judge kick is presumed unless it is argued that I shouldn't. Revised CPs, uniqueness CPs, and CP texts with no supporting evidence can start to toe the line on condo, but aren't rejected at face value.

Conditionality: Neg probably gets multiple conditional positions plus the squo, although I can be convinced otherwise. With a combination of other abusive strategies, I will be far more convinced.

Non-T AFFs: I think that topicality is probably good for the game of debate. I like affirmatives that find ways to use literature within the resolution. AFFs that disregard the resolution to talk about a whole other topic, I am not very sympathetic to. AFFs that talk about the topic, but critique strict topicality or governmental action as a procedural constraint I tend to worry about the sustainability of, although I am not unfair to them in the debate. I am not convinced that non-topical AFFs get perms, but that has to be debated for me to care.

FW: I often find myself being more persuaded by framework standards like fairness far more than standards like portable skills. TVAs aren't necessary to win FW debates. The best FW strategies in my opinion tend to be unapologetic in their exclusion of the affirmative - tell me why their AFF just can't be in the topic instead of some "half in, half out" mental acrobatic.

Impact Turns: Probably one of my favorite debates to watch when executed well. I don't find human death good to be particularly persuasive unless outweighed by some larger utilitarian impact (which probably should be some larger event of human death).

1NC Theory: It's mostly frivolous. The only time its somewhat persuasive is when it answers something about the resolution. I guess plan specification arguments are Ok sometimes, although you really have to have some evidence that explains how incoherent their plan is instead of weird arbitrary standards of specificity.

1AR Theory: I'm not going to say that I like it, but sometimes CP theory is necessary to protect yourself from some weird strategies. Ranked from best shells to worst shells: Consult Bad, Delay Bad, Condo Bad, Agent Bad, PICs Bad, some weird perf con theory arg.

Spikes: I don't think they are actually as strategic as people think since it essentially trades more AFF offense for defense that may not answer anything. I will evaluate them unless they are blippy and spread out through the doc where I can't really flow them. If you read a "no war" spike out of the AFF and the NEG reads a DA with a war impact, the NEG did not concede the AFF argument, they are reading a "yes - war does happen" card. Odds are, their topic DA will be much more contextual to the question of war concerning the topic than the AFF's one card will be. However, it does clarify the situation if the NEG explains that their card answers the AFF card. It doesn't affect the round much, but I must say that spikes really ruin the persuasive narrative of the AFF and oftentimes just seem slimy. NEGs are encouraged to simply dismiss RVIs or arguments that suggest that the NEG doesn't get to read topicality because there is no chance I am voting on them.

Tone: To be frank, I was never a debater who cared much about the aggressiveness of my opponent in the round, so debaters ought to speak up about things like CX getting too heated because my bar might be a lot different. Nobody should feel so uncomfortable by the tone of a round that they want to leave. With that being said, there is nothing wrong with debaters performing their confidence and throwing some snark at each other. I tend to think that a large part of persuasiveness is perceptually winning.

Post-Rounding: Not offended by it if it's reasonable. Probably a good practice for holding judges accountable.

NFA LD

CX @ Newton High School 2012 - 2016

NFA LD @ WKU 2016 - 2020

Email: Alex.mckenzie.rivera@gmail.com

NFA: If your strategy has fewer than 3 topic specific cards, your ceiling for speaks is a 27.

Debate at its core is a game of strategy and persuasion. If your arguments are strategic and persuasive, they are a fine path to the ballot. Paradigms can overly restrict that game and force you into a strategy you are less comfortable with, therefore my paradigm probably only matters in close rounds - if you decimate someone on an argument that I despise (ASPEC), I won't arbitrarily throw it from the debate (although I may look for others ways you won the debate first). But know that my opinions about arguments will start to influence my decisions when claims are more robustly tested.

NFA-LD Disclosure: Your speaker points will never be higher than a 27 if you are not fully disclosed on both the AFF and the NEG. This does not include arguments you have not broken of course.

Speaks: They are rewarded based on bold strategic maneuvers, clever argumentation, persuasiveness, quality time allocation, showing a commitment to good research, and not saying things that are egregiously offensive.

You Should Read: DAs, Condo CPs, T, Ks, Case Defense, Impact Turns, and Good Impacts.

You Can Read: Non-T AFFs, Delay CP Bad Theory, Consult CP Bad Theory, and I guess ESPEC.

Don't Read: RVIs, Non-Resolutional AFFs, Slimy Spikes, Bad Impacts supported by an old structural violence framing card, and basically most Random Theory Arguments.

Util is trutil. It is hard to push me to ignore larger death tolls unless you have material defense.

Kritiks have the highest ceiling but lowest floor for me - I do not enjoy judging "tagline"/"buzzword" debates where you haven't thought about these arguments for more than 3 seconds and Kritiks are starting to be the biggest perpetrator of this for me.

Longer Opinions

Favorite Debates to Judge: Impact turns, Case + DA, Good CPs.

Where my decision begins: I tend to believe that the ballot does nothing but reward a win to the better debater. The better debater is the person who convinced me that the resolution was either desirable or not desirable through superior argumentation/persuasion. Arguments that do not answer the question of the resolution are almost always illogical and I do not find them particularly compelling. For example, a "control F" word kritik of some phrase in a card is not a logical answer to the resolution, it's an evidence indict, but a word PIC that puts offense on a certain word or phrase in the plan text is logical to me because it disproves the desirability of the plan.

Speed: Clarity is really important to me, but I do not have problems with speed itself. Blipping through theory/analytics with no clarity, pen time, or sign posting is an easy way for me to miss key arguments. Speed is probably never a voter although it is technically possible to convince me otherwise. I believe people can incorporate criticisms of speed into a kritik that answers the desirability of resolutional action, simply make better arguments than your opponent, or punish horizontal strategies with turns.

Kritiks: If you are interested in specific link arguments and well thought out alternatives, I will be one of the better judges for you on these arguments. I tend to be well read on this literature unless you are venturing into pure metaphysics, abstract aesthetics, or heavy ethics. If your link to a big stick heg AFF is a dusty edelman 95 state bad link card, you're in a rough spot. I believe that links are the only way to describe how the alt relates to the affirmative. The more general your links are, the easier it is for the AFF to beat you on contextual nuance.

DAs: They win debates. 1NR depth is highly rewarded, although I'm open to debates over what cards or extrapolations the 1NR gets, considering that these 2 card tix DAs that morph into 9 card scenarios with specific links feel kind of new.

T: Although technical superiority matters, I often think that people lack persuasiveness with T collapses and it hurts the argument quite a bit. I need a vision for the topic to really hang my hat on. While definition distinction and clarity will make for the cleanest win (I love to see a lot of 1NR cards on definition distinctions), more generic T arguments are fine as well. With the event time constraints, the AFF is often likely to lose a good T debate unless they go all in on a couple arguments in the 2AR, so I would suggest that they do so.

Case: I am somewhat of a case connoisseur. It is an underdeveloped skill that often make or breaks rounds. You always need offense to win, although it doesn't have to be much if your case debate is really clean. Terminal defense can exist, but probably won't trigger presumption.

CPs: I don't think that all NBs need to be consistent with every CP in your strategy (ie you can read a states CP with its own NB and also read an ADV CP with its own NB). I will judge kick if I think the squo is a better option unless explicitly told I should not do so.

Conditionality: Neg probably gets multiple conditional positions plus the squo, although I can be convinced otherwise. With the time constraints of this event, I really feel for the AFF with 3 or more conditional positions. I don't think that 1NR uniqueness CPs are legitimate since a rebuttal is not another constructive, but if the AFF isn't interested in debating that, go for it.

Non-T AFFs: I think that topicality is probably good for the game of debate. I like affirmatives that find ways to use literature within the resolution by utilizing revolutionary fiat powers. Whether or not the affirmative gets to fiat large structural changes within the topic to the United States is often a question of fiat power, not topicality. AFFs that disregard the resolution to talk about a whole other topic, I am not very sympathetic to. AFFs that talk about the topic, but critique strict topicality or governmental action as a procedural constraint I tend to worry about the sustainability of, although I am not unfair to them in the debate. I am not convinced that non-topical AFFs get perms, but that has to be debated for me to care.

FW: I often find myself being more persuaded by framework standards like fairness far more than standards like portable skills. TVAs aren't necessary to win FW debates. The best FW strategies in my opinion tend to be unapologetic in their exclusion of the affirmative - tell me why their AFF just can't be in the topic instead of some "half in, half out" mental acrobatic.

Impact Turns: Probably one of my favorite debates to watch when executed well. I don't find human death good to be particularly persuasive unless outweighed by some larger utilitarian impact (which preferably is some larger event of human death).

1NC Theory: It's mostly frivolous. The only time its somewhat persuasive is when it answers something about the resolution. I guess plan specification arguments are Ok sometimes, although you really have to have some evidence that explains how incoherent their plan is instead of weird arbitrary standards of specificity.

1AR Theory: I'm not going to say that I like it, but sometimes CP theory is necessary to protect yourself from some weird strategies. Ranked from best shells to worst shells: Consult Bad, Delay Bad, Condo Bad, Agent Bad, PICs Bad, some weird perf con theory arg.

Spikes: I don't think they are actually as strategic as people think since it essentially trades more AFF offense for defense that may not answer anything. I will evaluate them unless they are blippy and spread out through the doc where I can't really flow them. If you read a "no war" spike out of the AFF and the NEG reads a DA with a war impact, the NEG did not concede the AFF argument, they are reading a "yes - war does happen" card. Odds are, their topic DA will be much more contextual to the question of war concerning the topic than the AFF's one card will be. However, it does clarify the situation if the NEG explains that their card answers the AFF card. It doesn't affect the round much, but I must say that spikes really ruin the persuasive narrative of the AFF and oftentimes just seem slimy. NEGs are encouraged to simply dismiss RVIs or arguments that suggest that the NEG doesn't get to read topicality because there is no chance I am voting on them.

Performative Aspects of Debate: To be frank, I was never a debater who cared much about the aggressiveness of my opponent in the round, so debaters ought to speak up about things like CX getting too heated because my bar might be a lot different. Nobody should feel so uncomfortable by the tone of a round that they want to leave. With that being said, there is nothing wrong with debaters performing their confidence and throwing a bit of shade at each other. I tend to think that a large part of persuasiveness is perceptually winning.

Post-Rounding: Not offended by it if it's reasonable. Probably a good practice for holding judges accountable.

Full Judging Record
Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Sunvite HS 2022-01-07 VLD Octas Lake Highland Prep PS Durham SA Neg Neg 3-0
Sunvite HS 2022-01-07 VLD R4 Lexington AS Lake Highland Prep HL Neg
Sunvite HS 2022-01-07 VLD R3 Lake Highland Prep WH Lincoln East BH Aff
Sunvite HS 2022-01-07 VLD R2 Isidore Newman EE Durham JH Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R7 West Des Moines Valley AM Brentwood MD Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R5 Albuquerque AK Marlborough JK Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R5 Garland AA Lexington AA Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R4 James Logan AB Ayala AM Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R4 Marlborough MJ Southlake Carroll SD Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R3 James Logan LZ Durham SA Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R3 Hunter AI Harker KB Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R2 Dwight-Englewood EK Marlborough ML Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R2 Peninsula CS Memorial DX Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R1 Marlborough JH Catonsville AT Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-11-19 VLD R1 Memorial SC Harker SY Aff
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 NLD R9 Truman State Megan Trent Lafayette Baris Yazici Neg Neg 2-1
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 JV R9 Meg Petersen Penn State Speech and Debate Team Nate Gillespie Aff Aff 3-0
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 JV R8 Washburn Logan Michael Penn State Speech and Debate Team Nate Gillespie Neg Neg 3-0
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 VLD R7 Lafayette Josh Hale North Texas Holden Bukowsky Neg Aff 2-1
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 VLD R6 Kansas State Ben Thoeni Washburn Carlos Cedillo-Silva Aff
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 JV R4 Central Michigan Lucas Leodler Penn State Speech and Debate Team Glenn Hubbard Neg
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 VLD R3 Washburn Zach Wallentine Illinois Donna Jenkins Aff
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 VLD R2 Sacramento State Ayyah Al-jibouri Lafayette Ceci Montufar Aff
Fall Redbird Debate Tournament C 2021-11-06 VLD R1 Lafayette Josh Hale Washburn Daniel Archer Aff
Sequoyah Autumn Argument HS 2021-10-23 NPD R4 Johns Creek Lilly Martin & Sean McCarthy Northview Orelia Thottam & Akarsh Duddu Aff
Sequoyah Autumn Argument HS 2021-10-23 NPD R3 Northview Rashi Patel & Ishanvi Suresh Alpharetta Yaswanth Kandra & Om Patil Aff
Sequoyah Autumn Argument MS 2021-10-23 RPD R1 Johns Creek Evelyn Zhang & Shreya Kumar Pace Noah Halpern & Carter Smith Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2021-10-15 LDV Sextos Hunter AI Mission San Jose SR Aff Neg 2-1
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2021-10-15 LDV R4 OES AH Pittsburgh Central Catholic EF Aff
New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament HS 2021-10-15 LDV R2 Marcus JR Montville SH Aff
Online Policy League 1 HS 2021-10-09 VCX R3 Wooster SV Lexington KS Aff
Online Policy League 1 HS 2021-10-09 VCX R1 Leon Goldstein AZ Lexington BG Neg
Wku Fall Tournament C 2021-09-25 OLD Octo Washbu Jenna Gorton Lafaye Josh Hale Neg Neg 3-0
Wku Fall Tournament C 2021-09-25 OLD R6 Washbu Daniel Archer TruSta Elijah Baum Neg
Wku Fall Tournament C 2021-09-25 JVLD R4 Washbu Logan Michael TruSta Matt Kruse Neg
Wku Fall Tournament C 2021-09-25 OLD R3 CenMic Natalie Brant NorTex Zachary Jones Aff
Wku Fall Tournament C 2021-09-25 NLD R2 Crowde John Winnett PSSADT Lenneya Murray Aff
Wku Fall Tournament C 2021-09-25 OLD R1 ConUni Leonard Memon NebLin Salman Djingueinabaye Neg
Alexis Elliott Memorial Round Robin C 2021-09-24 RS Pod-Sw Lucas Leodler Elijah Baum Neg
Alexis Elliott Memorial Round Robin C 2021-09-24 RS R2 Alice Sauter Alicia Stout Neg
Alexis Elliott Memorial Round Robin C 2021-09-24 RR R2 North Texas Wofford Lewis and Clark Webb Aff
Alexis Elliott Memorial Round Robin C 2021-09-24 RR R1 Nebraska-Lincoln Wallenburg Lafayette Montufar Aff Aff 2-0
Yale University Invitational 2021 HS 2021-09-17 VLD Octas Strake Jesuit JW Village RB Aff Aff 2-1
Yale University Invitational 2021 HS 2021-09-17 VLD Double Princeton CB Strake Jesuit VM Aff Aff 2-1
Yale University Invitational 2021 HS 2021-09-17 VLD Triple Lake Highland Prep PS Charlotte Latin AP Aff Aff 3-0
Yale University Invitational 2021 HS 2021-09-17 VLD R5 Strake Jesuit HZ Lake Highland Prep PS Neg
Yale University Invitational 2021 HS 2021-09-17 VLD R2 Princeton CB Montville RP Neg
Yale University Invitational 2021 HS 2021-09-17 VLD R1 Sharon RG Charlotte Latin EL Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R12 9754 9313 Aff Aff 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 XDB R11 9174 9413 Neg Neg 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 LD R3 628 657 Neg Neg 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 LD R3 554 564 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 LD R2 541 629 Neg Neg 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2021-06-07 LD R2 583 592 Neg Neg 2-0
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 LD 5 Clover Hill MM Bradley Tech HP Aff Aff 3-0
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 LD 4 Reservoir NB North Allegheny LS Neg Aff 2-1
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 LD 3 Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart HS Chantilly JW Neg Neg 2-1
NCFL Grand National Tournament HS 2021-05-26 LD 1 Hunterdon Central SS Cardinal Mooney OD Aff Aff 3-0
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 JV Elim 4 MisSta CC NorTex JW Neg Neg 3-0
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 GP Elim 2 Lafaye LG CenMic NB Neg Neg 2-1
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 JV Elim 3 NorTex JW MisSta SS Aff Aff 3-0
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 GP Elim 1 NebLin NW Lafaye LG Neg Aff 2-1
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 GP R6 NorTex JS IllSta PG Neg
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 GP R5 Illino DJ Washbu ZW Neg
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 Nov R4 OakCom SK PSSADT NG Neg
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 GP R3 Lafaye LG Washbu DA Aff
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 GP R2 Lafaye JH NebLin NW Neg
3rd Annual NFA LD Grand Prix C 2021-03-13 GP R1 Lewand RT CenMic TT Neg
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2021-02-20 BQ Quarte 113 102 AFF AFF 3-0
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2021-02-20 BQ BQ 4 104 116 AFF
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2021-02-20 BQ BQ 3 117 101 NEG
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2021-02-20 CX R1 183 297 NEG
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2021-02-20 BQ BQ 1 107 103 AFF
The Newark Invitational HS 2021-01-08 LDV R5 Harrison GC Lexington AG Neg
The Newark Invitational HS 2021-01-08 LDV R4 Claremont GK Scarsdale JT Aff
The Newark Invitational HS 2021-01-08 LDV R2 Bergen County Academies MS Harrison TB Neg
Ridge Debates HS 2020-12-11 VLD Final Perry JA BASIS Phoenix ZJ Neg Neg 3-0
Ridge Debates HS 2020-12-11 VLD R5 Freehold Township SA BASIS Phoenix ZJ Aff
Ridge Debates HS 2020-12-11 VCX R5 Bronx Science BC Lexington BO Neg
Ridge Debates HS 2020-12-11 NCX R3 Lexington JL Newark Science SD Aff
Ridge Debates HS 2020-12-11 VLD R1 Chaminade ZS Bridgewater Raritan RL Aff
WKU Fall Tournament C 2020-09-26 OLD Octos NotDam Conrad Palor NebLin Addisson Stugart Aff Aff 2-1
WKU Fall Tournament C 2020-09-26 OLD Double CenMic Tyler Tobias Lafaye Yordanos Mengistu Aff Neg 2-1
WKU Fall Tournament C 2020-09-26 OLD R5 CalSan JT Melton Hillsd Erin Richard Aff
WKU Fall Tournament C 2020-09-26 OLD R3 Lafaye Ceci Montufar Will White Neg
WKU Fall Tournament C 2020-09-26 OLD R2 Lafaye Ansh Mishra Washbu Ammeriahya Gonzalez Neg
WKU Fall Tournament C 2020-09-26 OLD R1 Washbu Emily Unruh Lafaye Luisa Gunn Neg
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD Finals William G. Enloe AC Myers Park EA Aff Neg 2-1
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 JVLD Semis Cary Acad BF Charlotte Catholic AH Aff Neg 2-1
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD Quarte Myers Park EA Charlie Reeves Aff Aff 3-0
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD Octas Riverside KS Woodrow Wilson KW Aff Aff 2-1
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD Double Riverside CT William T. Dwyer AT Neg Aff 2-1
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD R6 Apex Friendship CO Pembroke Pines Charter BG Neg
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD R5 Apex Friendship JS Fremont MT Neg
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD R4 Cary HS JM Eden Prairie AG Neg
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD R3 William G. Enloe KH St Croix Prep ADa Aff
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD R2 Pembroke Pines Charter CC William T. Dwyer RH Neg
Duke Invitational HS 2020-09-19 VLD R1 Apex Friendship FB Byram Hills EW Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 LD R3 L263 L161 Aff Aff 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 LD R3 L247 L332 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 LD R2 L204 L320 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2020-06-12 LD R2 L240 L151 Aff
Georgetown Spring International Tournament HS 2020-04-03 LDV finals FliPre AL GucWan CS Neg Neg 2-1
Georgetown Spring International Tournament HS 2020-04-03 LDV semis Gayle SR GucWan CS Neg Neg 3-0
Georgetown Spring International Tournament HS 2020-04-03 PFV R6 LakTra Morford & Wynne IndFla Gold & De Leon Aff
Georgetown Spring International Tournament HS 2020-04-03 PFV R5 IndFla Jaramillo & Hernandez SANGAN Liu & Malviya Neg
Georgetown Spring International Tournament HS 2020-04-03 PFV R4 BCAcademy KS Blake Enebo & Sweet Neg
Georgetown Spring International Tournament HS 2020-04-03 PFV R3 Blake Homan & Rannow BelJes Alvarez & De La Maza Aff
Georgetown Spring International Tournament HS 2020-04-03 LDV R1 AOHL SP FliPre AL Neg
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 LD RR R7 Holy Cross TJ Newark Science VA Aff Aff 2-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 VPF Semifi Edgemont MM Montville SG Pro Pro 3-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 VPF Quarte Montville SG Regis BF Pro Pro 3-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 LD RR R6 Hunter NK Holy Cross TJ Neg Neg 2-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 LD RR R5 Edgemont JJ Hunter NK Neg Neg 2-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 NPF R5 Regis KS Bronx Science ET Pro
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 NPF R5 Bronx Science OS Regis GC Con
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 LD RR R4 Harrison SN Holy Cross ND Aff
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 VPF R4 Montville LM Regis GuSm Pro
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 VPF R3 Delbarton LY Regis FK Pro
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 LD RR R3 Newark Science SB Harrison SN Aff Aff 2-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 LD RR R2 Holy Cross ND Newark Science SB Neg Neg 2-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 VPF R1 Scarsdale PS Regis BG Con
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 LD RR R1 Newark Science VA University MW Neg Neg 2-0
The Newark Invitational HS 2020-01-09 VPF R1 Bronx Science OP Regis KM Con
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School HS 2019-12-20 PF Quarte Blake JS Horace Mann MM Pro Pro 3-0
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School HS 2019-12-20 PF Octafi Marist SV Stuyvesant LS Pro Pro 3-0
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School HS 2019-12-20 PF Double Independent Campbell Hall FL Lake Highland Prep KC Pro Pro 2-1
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School HS 2019-12-20 PF Triple Lakeville GN Edina WJ Con Pro 2-1
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School HS 2019-12-20 PF R6 Madison West CR Edina NT Con
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School HS 2019-12-20 PF R3 Taipei American OT James Madison Memorial GN Pro
John Edie Holiday Debates Hosted by The Blake School HS 2019-12-20 PF R3 Independent Campbell Hall FL Walt Whitman LO Pro
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2019-05-25 CX Quarts 127 Rose Larson Aff Aff 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2019-05-25 CX Octos 123 117 Aff Aff 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2019-05-25 CX R5 192 196 Neg Neg 2-1
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2019-05-25 CX R4 165 102 Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2019-05-25 CX R3 193 105 Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2019-05-25 CX R2 114 130 Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2019-05-25 CX R1 104 195 Aff Aff 3-0
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFG Runoff Millard North SN La Salle DH Con Con 2-1
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFG R7 Plano West SZ Potomac SK Con
Tournament of Champions MS 2019-04-27 PFS R4 Hamilton SS BL Debate QZ Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFS R3 Dougherty Valley BR Canyon Crest GL Pro
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFG R2 Whitefish Bay FE Mission San Jose MK Con
Tournament of Champions HS 2019-04-27 PFS R1 College Prep BG Acton-Boxborough CG Pro
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2019-02-23 PF R6 Run 216 213 Neg Neg 2-1
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2019-02-23 LD R3 238 1206 Neg
New Jersey District Tournament HS 2019-02-23 LD R2 205 240 Neg
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational HS 2019-02-01 JVCX Octos Lexington KX Newark Tech TN Neg Neg 2-1
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational HS 2019-02-01 CX R5 Thomas Jefferson BY Lexington PJ Neg
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational HS 2019-02-01 JVCX R3 Strath Haven LY Mamaroneck DM Neg
Pennsbury Falcon Invitational HS 2019-02-01 CX R2 DuVal RS Pittsburgh Central Catholic EH Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R13 X200 X238 Neg Neg 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R9 X118 X127 Neg Neg 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R8 X128 X273 Neg Neg 2-1
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R6 X251 X140 Neg Neg 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R4 X203 X100 Neg Neg 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R3 X285 X143 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R2 X267 X258 Neg Neg 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2018-06-17 CX R1 X189 X228 Neg Neg 2-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX Octos 123 106 Aff Aff 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX Dbl Oc 154 181 Aff Aff 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R5 114 109 Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R4 175 166 Neg Neg 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R3 130 105 Aff Aff 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R2 126 103 Aff Aff 3-0
NCFL Grand Nationals HS 2018-05-26 CX R1 159 104 Neg Neg 3-0
43rd University of Pennsylvania Tournament HS 2018-02-09 CX Final Lexington MW Strath Haven LZ Neg Neg 3-0
43rd University of Pennsylvania Tournament HS 2018-02-09 CX Semis Strath Haven LZ Lexington LC Aff Aff 3-0
43rd University of Pennsylvania Tournament HS 2018-02-09 CX R5 Lexington MW Newark Tech EM Aff
43rd University of Pennsylvania Tournament HS 2018-02-09 CX R4 Lexington CC Strath Haven LZ Neg
43rd University of Pennsylvania Tournament HS 2018-02-09 CX R2 Newark Tech MR Lexington JP Aff