The 14th Scarsdale Invitational
2017 — Scarsdale, NY/US
Novice Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Please be respectful towards both me and your opponent. Stand up during speeches.
I will not hesitate to drop you and tank your speaks if you say anything sexist homophobic or racist.
Don't go too fast and speak clearly.
I am fine with DA's,CP's, Underviews, etc.
MAKE SURE TO EXTEND ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS/CARDS THROUGHOUT ALL SPEECHES.
LOOK AT ME DURING YOUR SPEECHES, INCLUDING CX. YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE ME, NOT YOUR OPPONENT.
I did LD for four years at Scarsdale High School in NY, attending the TOC my senior year.
My email is email@example.com, add me to the email chain!
I'm pretty much good with whatever arguments you want to read, just be mindful of how you're treating the other people in the room. As a debater, I tended towards tricks, theory, and framework debate, but I wish that I had been a k debater, and really love to see whatever you're best at. Obviously don't read anything offensive (racist, sexist, transphobic, etc).
I also ask that you slow down a little. Don't pref me if you don't feel confident that you can have a solid round at a fraction of your normal speed, I haven't done debate in four years and it takes me a second to get re-adjusted to spreading.
Weigh arguments, and weigh them well. This should be a given, but compare your weighing against your opponents' weighing. Interaction makes it make sense. Don't just extend things and presume I know what to do with them: I need you to spend time painting the bigger picture. If you want to minimize judge intervention, do the work yourself.
If nobody makes arguments, then I will default to these standards...please make arguments, so that I don't have to use defaults.
- truth testing
- competing interps
- drop the debater on T
- drop the argument on theory
- no RVIs
Take yourself lightly, this is an extracurricular activity and it can feel all-consuming, but it also can be fun if you let it be. Odds are you won't remember the wins and losses in a couple of years. I wish someone had reinforced this more for me when I did this activity.
Hello! I did four years of Lincoln Douglas debate for Newtown High School. I'm currently a freshman at the University of Florida. I'm vaguely familiar with Public Forum, but this will be my first time judging the event.
My main preferences are as follows:
Weighing: Please be clear and specific about weighing. Make it as easy as possible for me to understand why I should vote for you.
Speed: If you want to go moderately fast I'm cool with that. Be warned though that if you spread I'll probably miss stuff, which is bad for both of us.
CX: I won't flow CX.
Progressive args: I'm familiar with K's, theory, etc., but don't think they have much of a place in Public Forum. If your opponent is legitimately abusive in a way that puts you at a clear and severe disadvantage, I'm open to theory. If you wanna run font size theory, I'll probably laugh, but I'm not going to vote on it.
Trigger warnings: Use them. Please. If you’re reading arguments about sexual violence, graphic violence, etc. I expect to hear a trigger warning before the round. If your opponent(s) say that they are not comfortable hearing these args, and you read them anyway, I will drop you with zero speaks. End of discussion. It’s important to have conversations about these really real problems, but not at the expense of someone else’s mental health. Debate should be a safe space for everyone.
Above all, be nice to your opponent. If you're being a jerk for no reason your speaks will suffer.
Have fun :)
Hi! I debated LD for Lexington High School for 4 years and am now a Junior at Northeastern. I have been coaching young students who are entering the debate world since then so it's been a while since I've judged. That being said, run whatever you like (and have fun). I'll vote for most things as long as they're explained clearly, I can understand them, and you are kind and respectful.
In general, I'll vote for the debater that writes my ballot for me. I only vote off of what's on MY flow, so make sure you're articulating your arguments clearly. This means you should weigh, provide voters, and as always, extend.
As a debater, I was Kritik heavy however, I ran a range of arguments when I competed. The most important thing for me is respect and kindness, I won't hesitate to dock points or vote based on inappropriate/rude behavior. I am probably most familiar with K's and least familiar with theory (never really ran it so I probably hardly understand it). I would air on the side of caution and explain everything as clearly as possible (assume I know nothing).
WHY, WHAT, and HOW: tell me WHY an argument matters, WHAT it's impact is in the round, and HOW it links to the framework/it acts as a voter.
Feel free to spread but please include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any questions, feel free to ask :)
I'm a parent judge but i have judged many LD tournaments, novice, JV and varsity.
I'm a traditional values-based LD judge. I prefer that debaters focus on the merits of the resolution and offer clear contentions with claims, warrants, cards and impacts. And dont forget to crystalize your argument - dont expect me to do all the work! It's ok to try and run T-shells but you will need to have a really good argument as to why we should debate it and not the resolution.
And i am ok with speed unless you go beyond what i think is reasonable and then i will call you on it.
I Maya Fray-Witzer, a 4th year LD debater from Lexington High School (MA). I was competitive for my first 3 years in the activity and now I am a teaching assistant for the novice LD class at my school.
I would classify myself as a more traditional debater (less "tech"/"circuit") than some of my peers, but I will attempt to evaluate any argument.
I love framing.
I'm simply looking for claim - warrant - impact, intelligent argument generation, and a general care for other debaters and the activity.
Have fun, learn lots!
I debated four years LD at Byram and am a first year out rn. hmu on facebook @lukegusty or my email email@example.com if you got questions.
Theory/T: I love theory debates because I read a lot theory, but that doesn't mean you should read it if that's not your thing.
Non Topical Stuff: they’re fine
K's: K>theory debates are fun to watch.
Phil: Some of the stuff you guys are reading can be dense so if it is plz flesh it out in your final speech.
Larp: it’s ight
Tricks: what's an apriori?
bracket theory: :)
edit: if ur reading high theory or super dense phil explain it to me rlly well
Hi! I'm Sally and I debated for Scarsdale High School in LD for 4 years, graduating in 2019. Email me docs at firstname.lastname@example.org, and feel free to message me if you have any questions before round!
Scarsdale Update: I haven’t judged in over a year and have no idea what’s going on in debate in terms of trends and new args since then. Also haven’t listened to spreading since then so take from that what you will.
TLDR (Longer Paradigm to come ig never):
I read pretty much everything from performance to burdens and tricks, so I don't really have a preference for a certain style of debate. That being said, I have a higher threshold for explanations and weighing in dense K or LARP debates, as these were the ones I engaged with the least. In general, I won't vote on an argument I don't understand from your speeches.
In the absence of any argument made on either side, I will default truth testing, competing interpretations, no RVIs, drop the arg on theory, and drop the debater on T.
To me, debate is a game, something that can be educational but that can also be pretty toxic. This has two completely separate implications. One, don't assume the judge is an educator and call on me to do whatever - I need a warrant for that. Two, be nice! I'm not saying I don't want to see a good CX or a crushingly good strategy, but people are stressed enough as it is and you should know where the line is.
I haven't engaged with debate for a couple months, so honestly take all of my 'techy stances' with a grain of salt. That also means I'm not going to understand you if you stand up and start spreading at your max speed. Start slow and then speed up, and make sure you're clear on standards, advocacy texts, etc. I don't know exactly how fast would be good with me, but if I'm not following and spaced out you'll be able to tell.
I honestly have no idea what I'm going to average in speaks.
I debated LD at Bronx Science and have been out a few years, so treat me like a traditional/lay judge. Speak slower and build up. Being slow and coherent is more important to me than speed **slow down especially on tags and card names.
You need to extend explicitly and clearly, which means explaining how the arg functions in the larger context.
I appreciate strong crystallization and weighing as early in the round as possible--- Also, give me distinct voters in your later speeches so I can make the best decision.
Most importantly, be respectful to your opponent and have fun in your round!
I am not a big fan of tricks/spikes/theory in general (unless there is truly something abusive in round). A general rule, if you don't explain literature or context well enough, I won't be able to evaluate them as well. So don't assume I know something.
feel free to email or ask in person about any questions/concerns throughout the weekend.
*Updated for Scarsdale 2020*
Hunter '18, NYU '22 - I qualled to the TOC my senior year and went to 2 policy tournaments my freshman year of college.
I taught at VBI for two summers and coached a couple of debaters (with several bids/bid rounds) for two years, but I don't coach now. I have not done any topic research, and I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. I've left my old/more detailed paradigm up below if you have any questions/want to know how to get better speaks/want to know my preferences.
-PLEASE start a little slower for the first couple of seconds of your speech. Also, in general, please slow down a bit if you're not clear. I'll try to call clear but like... it's online debate lol
-If you're recording speeches please record them separately! Sending a recording that's longer than a few minutes will take 10 years and I will never get to hear your speech
-You can still extemp arguments but including analytics in docs is probably helpful in case of potential internet issues
-I always say I'll try to time speeches but I never actually remember so time yourself+your opponent
*Update 3/9/19: I have now taken the hot Cheetos policy off my paradigm. Rest in peace.*
Tl; dr: feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we should be good. I like unique arguments of all "types." It is ultimately is your round, and you should go for your best/most comfortable arguments. I will take the route of least intervention. If you have any questions, feel free to fb message or email me!!
Email: email@example.com I’ll only flow along with the speech doc for names of cards, but won’t rely on it so that I don’t miss extempted args. Compiling the speech doc is prep but flashing isn’t (unless it takes you a suspiciously long time to flash).
Things (I say "things" because some of you think these are arguments but they really are not) I will not vote on, and will dock your speaks for:
-Sexual assault doesn't matter/rape good/some other version of that -- I will actually stop listening to part of/the rest of the speech if you say this.
-Any version of "oppression doesn't exist/is good" (this is not the same thing as extinction outweighs)
-Unnecessarily bringing up your opponent's private life as a reason to vote for you -- especially if the implications are homophobic/sexist/etc.
Misc. Defaults (very, very loose, and only apply if no one makes any arguments in round) and other stuff:
-Tech>>>truth. I also think the burden is on the debaters to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence, so I won't interfere
-The more creative you are/entertaining the round is, the better your speaks will be
-I think CX is something that can only help and not hurt you. If you're really funny in CX, your speaks may go up, but it's cool too if you need all of it for clarification questions if you don't understand the other debater's position. I also think it's fine if debaters are somewhat sketchy in CX because you should try to avoid exposing your own case's flaws (note: this does not mean lie or not explain things if you get asked to explain a warrant) but I guess this is an unpopular opinion
-I'm fine with debating evidence ethics issues out in round unless both debaters agree to ending the round
-You can ask questions after the round or send me a fb message/email about my RFD, but if you or your 100 coaches grill me aggressively, I will change your speaks to a 0 and walk out of the room
K’s: I’ve realized that I have a higher threshold and more preferences for K’s than other arguments, so don’t just read one in front of me because I used to read them. I really enjoy judging good K debates. I read everything from identity politics to high theory throughout my career, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your K in simple terms. I also want K debates to be more tech.
-Please know your K lit. If you botch it I will be sad :(, and you will also be sad about your speaks.
-I evaluate the ROB similarly to a normative FW debate. You need to be winning your specific ROB+offense linking back to it for me to grant you the K. This does not mean engage in Oppression Olympics — rather, tell me why combatting colonialism controls the internal link to liberating womxn, why analyzing media is key to the res, etc. Also, please don’t read a performance without justifying why that’s important in the ROB/somewhere in the method because I?? Don’t?? Know?? Why?? You’re?? Reading it?????? And will probably ignore it. If there are 2 competing ROB’s and both debaters pretend that that debate’s a wash, I will be frustrated.
-I think methods debate is low key dying. I’m very willing to pull the trigger on presumption. AFF’s need to do something (this can be as vague as utopian politics or be hyper-specific to the topic — just don’t rant about how the world is horrible for 6 minutes.)
-Please have specific dis-ads to the perms (preferably ones that aren’t just generated off the links), and respond to each perm individually.
-I like brief overviews on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense
-I've voted on the Cap K multiple times but think the cap good turn is underrated (but it doesn't work in every scenario depending on what you're running so pls don't impact turn cap just because I said this lol)
-I love nuanced K v K debates and don't think they're done enough!!!
Performance: totally cool with it. I read these and I like unique methods. Again, just warrant why it's important in the ROB. Trigger warnings are good.
Non-T AFF’s: go for them. Please have reasons as to why we should reject the res/interpret it differently. More thoughts on these in the “non-T AFF’s/K’s vs T/theory” section.
Theory: I really couldn’t care less about how frivolous the shell is, just slow down on interps and weigh standards
-I won't default any voters; you should be reading them. If you don't, I probably won't vote on the shell.
-Semantic I meet’s are, of course, cool :) but they don't trigger RVI's
-I tend to think disclosure theory is true, and will like you more if you disclose. That being said, if you win why disclosure is bad, I will vote for you. If you’re running disclosure theory, please have a screenshot in the speech doc/ready if I call for it.
T: I like T, I suppose, especially against non-T AFF's that don't do anything/arbitrarily say fuck the topic.
Non-T AFF’s/K’s vs. Theory/T:
-I don’t have a preference/bias as to which comes first; you should be doing this weighing.
-I really dislike generic fairness bad/theory and T are oppressive dumps. I would much prefer you interact with the standards or articulate why that specific shell is oppressive. That being said, if you do win an impact turn on theory/T, I will vote on it.
-The more specific your interp is to the AFF/K, the happier I will be, and the higher your speaks will be. I would also be much happier if you linked some parts of the shell back as offense under the ROB instead of excluding the entire K.
-I like these! I tend to find these to be pretty funny. (Update: I've noticed a trend of debaters throwing random tricks in there because they think I'll like it but they can't explain it or clearly had no intention of going for it. I really dislike that.)
-I don't care if you're sketchy about them in CX.
-Please number your analytics
-I like creative/trolly a priori’s
-I will not be amused if you read these against a K AFF and go “haha! Oppression doesn’t exist!!!” I will give you a L0 (to clarify, I don’t care if you read these against K AFF’s, just don’t be a dick.)
Phil/FW: I’m familiar with the common LD frameworks, but don’t assume that I know your lingo !
-I’m extremely skeptical of epistemic modesty (and honestly not even sure how it really works ngl)
LARP: please please please weigh!!
-I like unique plans/CP's/PIC's/etc.
-I've realized I'm kind of bad at understanding what CP's do (esp. if it's some other policy), so err on the side of more explanation
-Bonus points if your util fw isn’t just Bostrom/Goodin/Woller/Sunstein/Paterson/Sinnott-Armstrong/Bryant/Coverstone/Sinhababu/Yudkowsky
-I like plan flaw
I debated for Ridge HS in LD for 4 years and CX for a couple tournaments. Now I’m a member of the debate team at NYU.
I am pretty familiar with most tech arguments and I am willing to vote on anything as long as it’s not racist/sexist/oppressive in any way.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org and you can contact me on Facebook (Alan Liu).
I read a bunch of policy and critical arguments as my go-to strategies throughout my debate career but I’m also willing to vote on other positions like T/Theory. I was never really a tricks or phil debater so make sure you explain those arguments to me very clearly.
I debated LD at Stuyvesant High School for four years and graduated in 2019.
**Updated for Lex 2022**
I have minimal experience judging LD on Zoom so please be clearer & slower than usual.
1. I'm willing to vote on any argument that I understand excluding offensive ones.
2. If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you.
3. Please don't make me judge a messy tricks debate. I don't like debates that are entirely predicated on your opponent missing an argument.
4. I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech] if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the debate after the 1ac" if it's made in the 1ac. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument are legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes evaluating the debate solely after one speech and will have a low threshold for responses.
1. Generally, good arg gen, topic knowledge, smart CX, and efficiency are what I reward most. Please don't make your entire rebuttal speech prewritten.
2. I don't disclose speaks.
Hi! I debated for 4 years at Needham in Massachusetts, graduating in 2020 and qualifying twice to the TOC.
If you have any questions, my email is email@example.com
As a debater, I read arguments from all styles of debate, ranging from the resolved a priori to virtue ethics to whole res affirmatives.
Tech > Truth
The strength of the warrant determines the strength of the argument
Independent voters should be really clear if mentioned
Personal attacks based on out of round incidents or arguments about debaters' appearances, mannerisms, etc. is a no-go, and neither are overtly problematic arguments or language
If you want to make a formal evidence ethics claim then I'll stop the round and evaluate it - if true, then the round ends and if false, the accuser loses
I aspire to adjudicate, live life like, and be Rex Evans. He also comes up with the best nicknames.
"i love tej"
if you or your coach has questions, you can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or text/call 9176018414. i will answer the debaters questions before the round about my preferences.
Lexington High School '18 UChicago '22
Please include me in an email chain
- Most common args I ran were Affro-pessimism, K affs, policy affs with TJFs, spec, T. Favorite arg was Affropess, but that doesn't mean I'm more likely to vote for it.
- Speed is fine. I'll yell clear but too many times and I'll dock speaks.
- Manage your own prep, compiling speech docs is prep, emailing/flashing isn’t.
- Comfort level: (most comfortable) Kritikal debates (K vs Policy aff, K vs. K aff, K vs. Phil) > LARP and theory/T debates >phil/tricks (least comfortable).
- Debaters who want to read dense phil or nail bomb, spike-laden affs should pref me lower.
- Love good K debates, hate bad ones. I have a high threshold - know your literature, execute effective strategy
- Reasonably familiar with most K's
- K debate should be technical
- The more dense the K lit, the more explanation required
- Prefer specific links over generics
- Clear articulation of the alt is key - Alt's tend to be the weakest part of the K and w/o them most K's are non-unique disads
- Pay more than lip service to framing
- Pls do evidence and impact comparison
- Give me a good overview and collapse effectively - Make it easy for me to evaluate the round
- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop the arg, text>spirit, meta-theory>theory, fairness and education are voters.
- Defaults are stupid
- Read that interp nice and slow. Also be extra clear with standards + warrants as I can only flow so fast. The blippier the arg, the clearer and slower it should be read.
-Give good overviews in last speech.
- Do good weighing - same idea as my larp section, make it easy for me to vote eval the round/vote for you.
- I dislike tricks. As a result, I have a low threshold to answering blippy tricks args. You can read tricky args and still engage in a somewhat substantive debate (e.g. I'll vote off a floating PIK) but if your case is 20+ hidden spikes in a 90% analytic phil FW, I'll be annoyed.
-I will vote on tricks but I am less likely to give you a lot of leeway.
- I wasn't really a phil debater in HS - only really read Kant NC's in phil debates.
- Do a good job explaining and ideally don't just read a bunch of preclusion args the I have to wade through.
- Plagiarizing a friend's paradigm, assume that "my understanding [of your FW] will solely depend on your ability to explain it."
- Speaks average a 28 (I'm pretty generous with speaks) - I don't disclose speaks
- Clipping means intentionally or blatantly claiming to have read something you didn't (be it an analytic in a speech doc or the second half of a card that you didn't mark). It doesn't mean stumbling over a few words. The penalty for misrepresenting evidence or clipping is a loss with 0 speaks. If you initiate an evidence ethics challenge and are wrong the penalty shall be applied to you instead.
- Default to ethical confidence (you can argue ethical modesty tho), presume neg, risk of offense, CX is binding. Defaults will be overridden by in round args.
- Low threshold for extensions. A nice overview at the top of a rebuttal is sufficient. But if you expect to win off an impact and don't mention it at all in your speech, it probably won't be evaluated.
Newark Science '20 | Rutgers Newark '24
Email chain: email@example.com
Spreading is fine.
Open CX is fine.
If it matters, I've done every style of debate at one point or another so I don't care what you read, just don't make the room an unsafe space. Primarily LD through HS and Policy through college with other things woven in.
* A large pet peeve of mine is over-explained roadmaps. Just say the pages! EX. "case --> counterplan --> disad" instead of "framework on the aff then the 2nd contention then the first contention then the underview then..." It's a waste of time, signposting in the speech is just good as a general practice, and if I don't hear quick and easy pages, I'm more than likely not listening and arguments will go where they go.
** On speaker points - If you ask for a 30, I'm deducting points from what I would have given you before; asking for a 30 with garbage speeches is like asking a teacher to round up your 93% (28) to 100% (30).
*** FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN PERSON THIS YEAR AFTER BEING ONLINE I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW YOU CAN NOT WHISPER AS WELL AS YOU THINK! In the digital world, you were able to mute the Zoom or NSDA Campus and kind of yell over the phone to your partner and so some of you never learned to whisper. I'm telling you right now, I can hear you. Please learn to whisper, I like to be surprised! :)
**** GEEZ LOUISE! IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SPEAKING DRILLS WITHIN THE WEEK OF THE TOURNAMENT, do them before you come into my room for at least 10 minutes. Please, please, please, please, please. I will use the full range for speaks.
Call me whatever you want just not the n-word. I don’t care what your argument is.
- Impact out all of your arguments!
- Efficiency is good! You should be grouping arguments and working to boil the debate down yourself. If you want to read a 4-minute overview, sure but make sure that there are pieces of the overview that explicitly implicate other pieces of the flow.
- Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient).
- Many debaters get lazy when people don't answer their arguments and it's a shame. Just because they didn't answer the link doesn't mean that you don't need to still give a solid link package. Just because an advantage was dropped doesn't mean you don't need to make an overview for it. This is all given that you actually want to go for it or have an offensive reason as to why it's bad that they did not answer X.
I see debate, very much, as an interpersonal activity. The way we interact with each other and the words we say have meaning. Cross-ex is the only time both teams (or people for LD) get the chance to directly speak but it doesn’t mean that speeches aren’t in conversation with each other.
Debate is also an educational activity and as an educator, I will protect the students first and foremost. To whoever is reading this, if something explicitly racist, homophobic, or whatever happens, I am going to shut the debate down and we’re going to talk about it. By explicit, I mean there are certain words and phrases that I can shut the debate down on (like the n-word or f-word or someone non-Black says Black people are slaves, etc.) but certain phrases that can be interpreted as such is a touchy subject and a conversation for when it happens.
I like debate enough to still be here and I think everyone should have the ability to have fun. If I can laugh in a good way and enjoy the debate EXTERNAL of the techne of debate, your speaks will reflect that and if we’re in person you might get a high-five lol.
Ks are my favorite! BUT I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook", so err on the side of over-explanation (especially if you're reading the philosophy of a long-dead French white dude). The best K 2NR to me will include a properly explained theory of power, win framing (ROB/ROJ, paradigm issues, etc.), win framework (answering weigh the case and stuff like that), include well-developed link analysis on one solid link (dominate the link debate), and control the alternative/permutation debate (the alt explanation needs to compare worlds and if you do not defend an alt, what do you defend and what happens to the permutation?). If you are reading a K aff, I need to know why the aff is good for you, debate, and the world. I don't have an issue per se with K affs that say "my partner and I affirm X and it's just for us" but it bothers me that your aff recognizes such a deeply problematic status of the world or debate and no one else is truly considered to also have that issue and need this advocacy affirmed for them too. I also don't think that all K affs MUST solve or fix everything but you should DO something, even if that something is to do nothing (like sleep lol) and solve for something or else this presumption debate will be a quick and clean loss for you.
CPs are cool with me, just establish competition. A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff, especially against a K or Non-T aff. Theory against abusive PICs is fine but more than 3 feels arbitrary (why are you reading PICs bad and then Countries PICs bad like you didn't only add 1 line to the second shell?).
DAs are great, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it. I can and have voted on nuclear war impacts and all that but I love impact turns to them. I think DAs are actually kind of underrated. I'm not sitting here as a person that loves policy and is vouching for DAs everywhere, but I will say a great amount of cards to flood the aff is a pretty funny strategy (in no way chill though, you speed demons need to relax).
FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on them, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW interp/debate model and compare it to the aff's.
I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory especially if the violation is unreasonable.
- Fairness doesn't make sense as a voter to me because the true fairness that y'all seek doesn't exist and the argument "as fair as possible" doesn't make sense when y'all don't have a way to measure fairness, it's just based on your feelings and intellectual capacity at the time.
- I will buy condo bad if it's more than 3 off in LD and 5 off in policy but you (aff) need to actually extend your arguments and answer the neg's. Other theory interps I have no distinct opinion on, and as with anything else, is up for debate.
- Case lists are probably a good idea in T debates.
Tricks (or Trix or Spikes) are a no. I'm not sorry. They're uneducational and hurt my ears and eyes. Booooo! [insert tomato here]
I'm a Senior at Bronx Science and have debated LD for 3 years.
Run whatever you want, I'm cool with whatever K or theory you want just don’t be offensive.
Email for email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Byram Hills '19
COVID UPDATE: I would strongly appreciate it if everyone keeps their cameras on throughout the entirety of the debate, and **point the camera so I can clearly see your face while you speak. There's undeniably a performative/theatrical element to debate that disappears if your camera is off. I understand that some debaters may lack a webcam or have connectivity/bandwidth issues that would require cameras to be off, but in all other situations I expect for cameras to be turned on (it's also part of the tournament's rules).
Hi! My name is Lindsey Perlman. I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2019, qualifying to TOC 3 times and reaching elims my junior year. I've worked at camps such as the National Symposium for Debate and the Urban Debate League, where I taught PF. I also have experience in World Schools Debate. Currently, I am a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania and member of Penn Debate Society and Mock Trial.
As a judge, I try to be as non-interventionist and tab as possible. Throughout my debate career, I read lots of theory/T but also lots of critical positions (Wynter, Weheliye, Deleuze, Lacanian feminism, etc.) and always loved framework debate (Kant, Sartre, etc). I don't prefer that you choose one type of debate over another - do what you're good at/passionate about!
TLDR: More than anything else, I value when a debater has a solid sense of strategy, and my judging preferences will shift if presented with warranted arguments impacted to an evaluative mechanism. I am comfortable listening to and voting on Ks, theory, phil, LARP, disclosure, performance affs, tricks, etc..
I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand. Please do not substitute debate jargon for thorough explanations of the arguments that you are making. Especially in the context of dense kritikal/philosophical debates as well as LARP debates, please err on the side of over-explaining things.
Speed: I have no problem with spreading. I would appreciate if you start slower at the beginning of your speech and work up to your max speed. Please slow down on interps, advocacy texts and taglines.
Defaults: If no arguments are presented to the contrary: competing interps over reasonability, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, metatheory before theory, T and theory same layer, no RVIS, truth testing over comparing worlds.
Speaker points: I love a brief summative overview at the beginning of the 2nr and 2ar that breaks down what the layers of the debate are, why you are winning the highest layer, etc., as it is really a reflection of your strategic process and mindset. A compelling CX that elucidates the flaws in your opponent's position is a must for higher speaker points. If you are rude or overly arrogant/condescending, I will drop your speaks.
- Additionally, if all of your cards are obviously recycled from other debaters or past years (including the tags), don't expect a 30. I've been thoroughly disappointed that some debaters haven't even bothered to change tags of cards read when I was in high school. Do your own research and card cutting - as a "small school debater" in high school, I cut every card from articles I read myself; you can do it too. The same thing goes for speeches/CXs that are obviously scripted. Don't expect a reward for reading off of a document - that doesn't take skill.
- On the flip side, I will bump speaks for debaters with argument innovation/who read new affs/philosophies that have never been read before.
***Finally, anyone who knows me well knows that I like to laugh a lot. If you have a good sense of humor in your CX or speeches and can make me smile, I will bump your speaks.***
PARADIGM UPDATE FOR December 2022
I have not judged debate in the past three years beyond a few middle school tournaments in the past month. I will be unfamiliar with this new topic besides a basic understanding, and you should start slow in general. I'm not the best with hearing spreading in general and being over a laptop likely makes that worst.
Your better off treating me like a smart parent judge (talk fast but preferably less spreading) who has some basic knowledge of debate rather than an old debater out of high school, since it's been 5-6 years and I didn’t end up doing college debate at all.
A lot of basic, intuitive debate theory is no longer intuitive to me since it's been like five years. I'm basically 50 in young people years at this point. If you think you don't have to dumb things down because of my past, you are WRONG. You will set yourself up for an L.
COACHES PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE PREFFING ME MAN. EVEN IF YALL KNEW ME FROM BEFORE OR SOMETHING.
My cheat sheet should still be pretty accurate, but treat #1 as even higher than before.
yo whats up? I’m Osmane and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years. I was pretty average for a debater, never really too high level and barely won anything so take that in to account when preffing me.
Bring me Krispy Creme Donuts and i'll boost your speaker points by 0.2
Buy me a packaged pickle (Like Van Holten's) and ill bost them by 0.3
[inflation update, KCDonuts now only grant a 0.1 boost, and pickles by 0.2]
GO SLOWER THAN NORMAL! I haven't judged in a solid minute and know only surface layer knowledge about this topic. I also have trouble hearing in general sometimes, so clarity is really important in front of me. I'll say clear twice before i start deducting speaks instead of saying clear.
Osmane's Cheat Sheet:
1 - Traditional Debate (Morals, not phil, like old school LD debate)
2 - Identity-related kritiks (fair warning: I'm not too good with highly abstract interpretations of identity),
3 - Counterplans, Disadvantages, Topicality
4 - Theory
Wildcard: Untopical Affirmatives - The more feasible/material it is to me, the more receptive it'll be to me. An untopical aff to use rhetoric in debate rounds to spread positivism is probably more receptive than an aff about throwing trash around as a symbolic way of fighting back against capitalism through ecological BURST!
I'm a first year, so DON'T assume that my judging will reflect the way I debated. I'm a wild card and you should pref me as such.
My email for speech docs is email@example.com
My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy. Also Osmane, that guy is sexy, phew. [2022 revisiting and man, he really is.]
Note: Most of those influences are HIGHLY material people who take abstract things to their logical ends (i said most of them.). This means a material K that I can see logically working is better than some convoluted junk I can't understand. Use more common talk with me than debate jargon, I barely ever understood it.
don't say racist, sexist, or messed up things like Death is good.
I enjoy a slower delivery to spread where I hear emphasis and a more persuasive approach to vocalizing your arguments. I'll award higher speaks if you speak as if you were an impassioned speaker.
I read these most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as anti blackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. I'm very material in alternative explanations, so if you don't explain the alternatives . . let's just say winning your K will be harder. If your going to be running some sort of post-modernism, I HAVE ALMOST NEVER understood the abstract way people run it, so run it 'materially' if possible. I might not be the best for it but I'd rather you go for POMO that your good at then messing up hard on some identity-based K
wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.
ha. HA. HA! HA! no.
Just like people think that I love K’s because I debated for Newark, people think I hate theory which is pretty damn right. I hate frivolous theory and the rigid technicality based formatting of theory. If it's legitimate and I'm like "yeah naw that opponent did some abusive junk" i'll consider it though. I rather you make it an in-round disad as opposed to a separate theoretical argument. I default Education > Fairness, Reasonability and drop the argument.
Their fine. I feel like people love to read these crazy scenarios in order to magnify the impact. More power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense.
eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.
I don't like voting on this because everyone has their own idea of how it works. This is mine:
Neg has presumption until they read some sort of alternative (via k, cp, or whatever.) then it shifts to aff.
you drop it you lose.
Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.
*** For Yale 2020
I haven't judged since Harvard, so I'm not too sure what LD looks like now. Go like 70% speed (even lower with Zoom) and make the rounds interesting and easy to evaluate. Also, I don't know the common args right now so please have good explanations.
Email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated for Princeton High School from 2016-2019, primarily in the Northeast, accumulating three bids and qualifying to the TOC my senior year.
My career and the way I think about debate has been influenced by the following: Matthew Chen; Sam Azbel; Muhammad Khattak; Ari Azbel; Nina Potischman; Chris Sun; Zoe Ewing.
1. reading a card doesn't mean you read a warrant - especially true with a lot of implausible disads and contrived K links. too many cards are unwarranted as hell and while I won't auto-reject a card for not having a warrant, I will reward debaters who do a good job explaining why their opponent's card is crap with high speaks
2. good K debating is good case debating. Please please please explain your links and the theory of the K in the context of the aff advantage/how they implicate solvency. This doesn’t mean saying “K turns case because ontology blah blah blah”, it means pointing out missing internal links in aff solvency / advantage areas and doing warrant comparison as to why the K explains the aff impacts more. For example: “ending aid to Tajikistan doesn’t actually solvd the drug war since their evidence doesn’t account for alt causes like political incentive and Russian influence which proves the Aff is just structural adjustment - that’s a better explanation of the world since it accounts for unconscious racial bias in Tajik citizens which the 1AC solvency doesn’t have any game on” is a far more convincing way to implicate the K v case debate than just saying “ontology outweighs” “state bad” or “fiat illusory” over and over
3. the words "independent voter" mean nothing to me. unless you actually take the time to warrant why the issue you bring up comes above all other issues/I should evaluate no other interaction, I'm going to treat your 2-line blip that becomes the entire 2n/2ar as on the same layer as any other argument
4. going with the trend of not voting on poorly warranted buzzwords, I have found that many analytics get too short to qualify as arguments - especially on theory. At the point where your drop the debater warrants are literally "1) deterrence 2) rectify time lost on theory 3) sets good norms" and then nothing else, you haven't made an argument. If you want me to vote for something, I need to understand the warrant without assuming prior knowledge of your arguments.
5. tech over truth. nonetheless, if your argument is really bad, the threshold for what counts as a response goes drastically down
6. you can ask questions during prep, but you can't use your remaining CX time as prep time
7. I’ll vote on whatever you tell me to unless it’s blatantly offensive like rape good, racism good or doesn’t have a warrant.
8. slow down on tags and author names
9. I’ll evaluate warrants based on what they justify – for example, if you read defense but call it a turn, I’ll only evaluate it as defense unless you explain why it is a turn warrants need to be fully fleshed out and extrapolated by the final speech. i won't hesitate to say "i don't understand what your warrant is" in my rfd - debate is a communicative activity so it's the burden of a debater to make their point clear.
10. weigh as early as you can "i.e. disad ow case in 1nc, t standards weighing in 1ar". and don't go for everything in the 2nr/2ar if you want me to be able to resolve the round - collapse to 1-2 args and WEIGH instead of extending like 10 random cheap-shots and hoping one sticks.
11. I’ll say clear as much as necessary, won’t deduct speaks but if I didn’t flow something in the original speech I won’t hesitate to say so in my RFD
12. I don’t flow along on the speech doc - rephrased: signpost and be clear
13. disclosure is probably good.
14. flashing isn’t prep, but compiling everything into one doc is prep
15. personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations.
along those lines, please be respectful. i understand that debate is stressful, and i like debaters who are passionate and confident. however, there is such a thing as being too mean. for example, if you yell at your opponent to "sit the fuck down, you asshole" or something like that don't expect good speaks. there's no brightline for this, so I'll warn you and tell you to stop the first few times, but if you don't stop, i reserve the right to drop you
stolen from grant brown:
If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C.
Questions of misrepresentation/miscutting should be addressed in the round - in whatever form you determine to be best.
Preferences: I'll enjoy any style of debate done well and I will try to be as un-biased as possible. Debate is your game, and I'm not going to insert my opinions. That being said, I inevitably do have ideological beliefs, so here they are if you want to see. Ultimately though, my favorite debaters are those who are flexible and can debate any style well, but prefer to read arguments that engage the core of the topic. That means I’d prefer a topic specific K with links to the plan over a contrived generic rider DA even though I generally lean on the policy side of the topic.
policy ----------X------------------- K
fiat is illusory/bad ----------------------------X- don't care/it's good
util -------------X---------------- phil
theory --------------X--------------- substance
competing interps ------------------X----------- reasonability (without brightline is better - I think BL's are horrible)
aff ground -------X---------------------- limits
absolute semantics ------------------X----------- subsets are a sufficient interp of the res
fairness is an impact ----X------------------------- Delgado 92 (this also just isn't an argument - make better impact turns)
t is violent/oppressive/genocide ----------------------------X- Anderson 6
my K aff solves violence -------------------X---------- presumption
5 plank combo shells -----------------------X------no
comparative weighing/strength of link ---X-------------------------- generic weighing
shells on same layer ---X-------------------------- neg flex means ignore 1ar theory
eval theory debate before any speech that isn't the 2ar ---------------------------X-- this isn't an argument
reading cards ---------------------------X-- line by lining warrants
lots of meh, short evidence --------------------------X--- good, fewer cards
will read all the ev -----------------X------------ will read no ev
politics DA is fake -------------------X---------- (good) politics DA is real
probabilistic uniqueness ---------X-------------------- absolute uniqueness
nuanced risk analysis ---------X-------------------- "my disad outweighs bc bostrom"
listens to spin -----X------------------------ won't evaluate spin
condo bad -------------------------X---- condo good
CP theory ---------------------X-------- lit determines legitimacy
"insert this re-highlighting" ----------------------------X- i read what you read
framework comparison --------X--------------------- lots of assertions and blips everywhere
syllogisms ----X------------------------- preclusion blips
K in context of aff --------X--------------------- generic links
empirics/contingency good------X----------------------- ontology/structural claims good
perm double bind ------X----------------------- your 5 perm blips
tricks ----------X------------------- no tricks
aprioris --------------------------X--- boring
NIB's/burden stuff/contingent standards ------X----------------------- hates anything that isn't comparing worlds
being upfront --X--------------------------- being sketchy in cx.
Hey! I’m Ananta (she/her/hers), and I debated for 4 years in LD at Scarsdale High School, serving as captain my senior year. I have taught at NSD during the 2018 & 2019 summers & TDC during 2019, 2020, and 2021. I just graduated from UCLA where I majored in Molecular, Cell, Developmental Biology and minored in Musicology. Go Bruins!
Greenhill 2022 Update: Hello Hello - I am now literally a college graduate, so debate has become a distant memory for me. I literally have not judged in over a year. Keeping that in mind, please slow downnn A LOT, explain everything to me in a beautiful ballot story in your later speeches, and remember that I have not kept up with recent metas at ALL, so if you want to do something new and novel, go for it - v exciting - but please take time to make sure you have caught me up too as I promise you, I will not be able to respond and evaluate effectively otherwise. Thanks so much - good luck with the season everyone!
Stanford 2021 Update: Hi all! I hope everyone is holding up well. This tournament is my first time judging since last summer and my first tournament judging in the online format. While I still hold all my previous beliefs, I definitely would need you all be to a bit slower, emphasize clarity, writing ballot stories, and I'm sure everything will go great. Enjoy & stay safe! :)
WIN Debate Tournament 2020 Update: Hello! I am super excited to be part of this tourney and to support women in debate. I just wanted to say that while I hold all my beliefs and can still competently evaluate rounds, I have not thought about debate in 4 months, and I would implore you to keep that in mind when I judge you, but again, I am super excited, and I am always down to help out/teach/give advice if anyone wants some - just send me an email. Have fun! Stay Safe! Social Distance!
Harvard Westlake 2020 Update: I still hold most if not all of past beliefs. I do, however, ask that if you do get me as a judge at HWL this weekend, a) go for what you are best at because I am a bit sick of people just reading theory in front of me because I read it a bunch and doing it poorly. I can evaluate and like evaluating everything equally at this point, b) be SUPER clear - my flowing and hearing abilities are not what they used to be (thanks to genetics, headphones, and being a bit removed from the activity) so I would really appreciate it, c) explicitly extend, and d) have fun! Thank you :)
The short of it: The majority of my debates during high school revolved around theory, tricks (mostly theoretical tricks) framework, and kritiks, but that doesn’t mean I am unable to evaluate other forms of debate, I’ll just have a bit less background knowledge and experience resolving them so you’ll have to do more explanation. I am open to voting on pretty much any argument as long as it has a warrant that is clearly articulated. Please go for all your nontopical K affs, frivolous theory, and tricks but you still have to win them technically like any other argument.
Feel free to reach out about any questions you might have about my paradigm or in general about debate - I am always down to help out, give reading or drill recs, and be a resource!
Email (yes, put me on the chain, I am a terrible flower): email@example.com
Conflicts: Scarsdale, LHP
Now, onto specifics:
I love this type of debate and towards the end of my career, I went for theory pretty much every round. I find these debates to be so much fun, engaging, and I am most comfortable evaluating these types of debates. I default to drop the debater, competing interps and no RVI, but that's only if no other argument is made on either side for an alternate paradigm. Also, unless specified in a speech, I don’t think I-meets trigger the RVI, but I am definitely willing to vote on it if you tell me why I should. Also, please weigh really explicitly between shells, standards, etc. Theory debates get super messy and blippy really easily, and I want to be able to evaluate correctly.
These are another type of argument that I am quite familiar with as I read quite a few cap Ks and Deleuze Ks in my time. I will probably know most of the common K literature so you don’t need to be that worried about me not knowing it. I think a good K debate consists of a lot of specific weighing as to why your advocacy is better in this instance. K debate can easily become an oppression Olympics, so I would be cognizant of that when you read Ks.
A good framework debate will make me smile as it’s a dying art, but a part of debate that I found totally educational and will probably be able to evaluate. I read a lot of Agonism, Kant, & Butler as a debater. I am familiar with most philosophers even pomo and all, but if you want to read for example, some super non canon frameworks such as Baudrillard, please understand that you will have to take sometime explaining it to me in your speeches so that I will feel comfortable and be able to vote on it.
I was decently tricky as a debater and read a good amount of truth testing, NIBs, a prioris, etc. If tricks debate is executed well, I will be impressed, thrilled, and give high speaks. I debated a lot of Good Samaritan paradox and Rodl but never really read it so just make sure you explain why these are offense for you, why they outweigh, etc. I am not the best flower in the world so just be sure to really articulate blips clearly and if something super important happens like the concession of an a priori, to slow down a bit and make sure I have it. Side note: I will not dock speaks for winning on the a priori as I think that’s a legit strategy, but it would be a lot better if you had other sources of offense too.
This type of debate is the type that I am least familiar with but after being on the West Coast for the last year, I definitely think I know what's up, the common Util tips and tricks, and don't mind judging them. I taught and evaluated it a bunch at camp too so I definitely think I have a stronger basis in it than I did as a debater, but I never really larped after half way through my sophomore year. That being said, if you want to larp in front of me, go for it as I can competently evaluate these types of debate given that you WEIGH (cannot emphasize this enough) and differentiate between your weighing I.e. meta weighing - tell me if magnitude or time frame is more important and why, articulate your impacts I.e. extinction vs whatever, and are clear in your ballot story.
Other Important Notes:
1. I presume AFF if there is no offense left in the round and no other presumption argument is presented to me - gotta correct for that side bias.
2. If you are rude or offensive in ANY way, I will be annoyed or not just angry, stop the round, tank your speaks, give you a stern lecture, tell your coach, and drop you. Just don’t make debate what it shouldn’t be and enjoy the activity PLEASE. Also, be nice to novices, you don't have to not spread or change your strategies too much, just be kind and understanding because you were once a novice too and we should encourage everyone to enjoy and partake in the activity! I probably will lower speaks if you are being absolutely ridiculous and rude to a novice.
3. I think trigger warnings are probably a good norm in debate, but if you don’t read them, I won’t have a problem or really pay it much attention unless a) your opponent is having a problem with it or b) your opponent reads arguments as to why you should be dropped for not reading them - I will vote on those.
4. I am willing to vote on disclosure theory, and I don’t really have strong opinions on it - you do you! I think it can be really strategic, but I also think reading disclosure against a small school debater who doesn’t even know what the wiki is is a bad practice. While I will vote on it, I’ll probably be irritated, and your speaks will probably reflect that annoyance.
5. I will not vote on racism, sexism, oppression, etc. good - I’ll just ignore it when I evaluate offense and do some part of what I said I would do in the 2 point of this section. I also don't think it has to be justified that one of the above isms is an bad impact.
6. I am slightly peeved by blips such as "evaluate the debate after the AC" or something along those lines. While I will vote on these types of arguments, they do make me cringe A LOT and your speaks will suffer a bit if this is what you end up winning on.
7. Update based on some arguments I have heard recently: If something is "condo" and you kick it, I think the whole argument including framing, the advocacy, etc. goes away - it's like that part of the flow never happened. Unless you explicitly explain to me why I still can/should look to that flow as an argument in the round even if it was kicked, I don't think I can vote on it because I do not think that is what condo means. I am willing to vote on these types of arguments, I just think I need a pretty coherent why its true.
8. I don't think compiling docs needs to be done during prep unless it gets super unreasonable/seems sketch, then I'll ask you to use prep to do the rest.
I'm probably a speaks fairy! I reward people for being entertaining and creative with their strategies as well as for good execution in the round. Most importantly just have fun and don’t take debate too seriously. I loved debate a lot when I did it and hopefully you do too :) I will award higher speaker points if you make a clever and NOT offensive joke (if you are offensive, you can refer to the 2nd point in the section above). I'm a pretty easy going person. Let’s just make debate less toxic, more fun, and super educational. You are free to ask me questions about debate, UCLA, life, etc.
Hi, I debated for Syosset High School in Lincoln-Douglas for 4 years and graduated in 2019.
Note: It's been a while since I've debated/heard a round (~ 2 years). What this means is that while I'll try to be as technical and proficient as possible in my judging, I may not be up to date with the way arguments are run and I'll need a while to get used to your speed if you're fast. Please be clear!
- Speed is fine - please ease into it and be CLEAR!!!!
- I’ll vote for any argument I understand that has a warrant that coherently justifies the claim/impact. Again, it's been a while since I've had these debates, but in high school, I was most comfortable with value criterion/framework, theory/T, and LARP debates, so I'd be better at evaluating these arguments (I was less comfortable with K and high theory debates). You can run anything you'd like (as long as it's explained clearly!!!), but just keep this in mind for your prefs.
Speaker Points: I’ll try to average a 28.5 and vary them based on strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. I won't change them based on what debate style you prefer. I’ll say clear/slow/loud as many times as necessary. Don’t be mean or rude, e.g. don’t spread or read tricks/theory/Ks against novices.
Have fun! Debate is a great activity, and it’s better when everyone is relaxed and has a good time. Feel free to ask me questions before the round if I’m missing anything here.
Look at me during CX: you’re trying to convince me, not your opponent.
I prefer fluency over speed. Speaking fast is fine, but if you’re going fast and stumbling over every other word, you save more time by just speaking a little slower. Plus it's easier to listen to.
No frivolous T or theory shells.
Bonus speaks if you make well-founded original args, WEIGH, or make me laugh (for a good reason).
Stuyvesant High School ‘18
Conflicts: Stuyvesant High School, Interlake AS, Interlake DB, Interlake AG, Interlake EL, Northview YS, North Mecklenburg PM, Lexington AK.
Please do email chains, flash drives are obnoxious (firstname.lastname@example.org)
If you have questions about my paradigm/preferences/whether or not I would tank speaks for certain things, email me or ask me before the round. This would be preferable to me having to resolve the issue in round or lowering your speaks unnecessarily.
*Brief TOC Update: I have not judged in a long time. I coach a bit still, but I am not caught up on the current meta as much as I was before. This means two things for you: a) you should absolutely not act as though I know what you're talking about and b) really listen/slow down when I ask you to.
*Dogmatism: I have recently written an article with Joanne Park about my position on some of the ongoings in debate culture, specifically on the issue of dogmatism. You can find the article here.
1) Tech>Truth Do whatever. I will not paradigmatically hack against any particular real arguments. I do not care what you do in terms of how I judge. I have arguments that I strongly dislike and arguments that I like, but will try not to reflect this in my speaks as much as possible.
2) Don't be mean. I hold the position that I cannot ethically vote for arguments that would be endorsing acts of particular forms of interpersonal violence. This line might become hard to draw. I am fine with heg good, authoritarianism good, skepticism, etc., and it is a bit unclear to me what the difference between some of these positions and the arguments I might find ethically hard to vote for are such as racism good, sexual assault good, etc. are so this might result in me making judgement calls during round. I will attempt to be as reasonable as possible. I also dislike it when more experienced debaters purposely make rounds exclusionary to younger and less resourced debaters. Of course, this judgement is hard to make sometimes as well, but I will lower speaks if I am certain it is happening.
3) I'll say clear/slow unless its obvious you are not listening when I do.
4) I don't flow off the speech doc.
5) I have done a little bit of policy in college.
1) I did LD for four years and ran whatever. I ran Ks for a year and I ran theory and phil for a year. As a result, I know some range of literature, but that should not be relevant. I go to NYU now and study philosophy.
2) I aim to be as least interventionist as possible. The more irresolvable a round is, the more I have to intervene. I get annoyed when I have to do this. I view having to use defaults as intervention.
3) I make faces sometimes. I aim not to, but sometimes I might communicate annoyance or amusement. Sometimes, I might communicate deep confusion. I've been told by some people that I appear angry or like I'm glaring sometimes. At any rate, some of my faces might not be your fault, but if its obvious I'm reacting to your speech or your opponent's speech, someone has probably done something wrong or right.
4) I don’t flow off the speech doc and I’ll only check it if a) I messed up on my own and missed something or b) it’s a round where the quality of evidence matters. I'm really bad at flowing author names, so reference arguments only by author at your own risk.
5) I pay more attention to CX now.
6) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to and you probably will not change my mind on:
- Tech > truth
- Truth > Tech requires tech for you to win it. I am extremely unconvinced that judges can have a role in the debate that requires them intervene based on what they think is true. The only exception I can see is when there is an obvious violation of or issue related to the safety of the students. In those cases, I will, if aware of the situation, stop the debate and report it to tab if I deem that it is appropriate to do so.
- Nothing is a voter until you've made an argument that it is.
7) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to, but would heavily prefer to hear a debate about if it is relevant:
- Lexical Priority > Strength of link (this just means if a claim that “aff theory outweighs neg theory” or something of the type is made, I evaluate aff theory regardless of what is won on neg theory. I also think strength of link/modesty weighing is strange when it is different layers, so if you want to go for that weighing, please justify it.)
- Generally probably low threshold for warrants if they are conceded, but if the argument is directly interactive with other warranted arguments and you are light on your warranting in extension, I will probably be receptive to “no warrant was extended” and not be super persuaded by that argument. Light warranting is also at your own risk because if the debate gets muddled, my threshold for warrants rises as I sift through arguments in an attempt to make the debate more resolvable and if the opponent points out that there isn’t a warrant for the extension of the argument that might hurt you.
- You don’t have to bother extending paradigm issues if they’re conceded, but this might harm you if the opponent makes it an issue.
- Fairness > Education
- T = Theory
- Competing interps
K v Theory or Substance
- Non "Prefiat" Ks = Substance
- K ROBs = Ethical Frameworks
- "Prefiat" Ks = Fairness/education (on theory)
8) Here are some thoughts I believe. Most function indifferently to how I judge rounds if both debaters make good arguments.
- Debate's a game. I have never heard a good argument against it being so. Debate being a game is not mutually exclusive with it having other important things.
- Disclosure is good. Full text disclosure is not preferable to non-full text disclosure. Open source is good. I am, however, unsure as to whether voting on out-of-round violations is a defensible norm.
- I do not like it when people rely on ethos to win rounds. I expect you to make arguments, not assertions said in a nice way. Because of that, I will likely be decently picking when deciding between warrants.
- Nothing is a voter until you make an argument. Theory doesn't have an impact until you make an argument.
- Metatheory does not paradigmatically come before theory.
- A lot of theory is silly. I do not care that much about the content of your shell, but if its not strategic that will be reflected in your speaks.
- Theory/Spikes heavy affs are fine. If I didn't catch it, it doesn't exist.
- I am unsure on whether certain violations e.g. evidence ethics are good enough reasons to stop rounds. I will try avoid doing so while I remain unsure.
- I do not think I can coherently evaluate “evaluate theory after x speech” if x is the speech you’re currently giving. I have the intuition that it is additionally outside of the debater's jurisdiction to make such an argument, but I'm unsure exactly why.
- I am not totally sure what counts as a trick, but "tricks" are a part of the debate lingo, so I figured I'd say a few things about what I think. For the sake of the paradigm, I am generally referencing to what people might refer to as tricks or tricky debate.
- Many tricks are quite unintelligent. It is silly to act as if they're intelligent. I would appreciate if you did not. I do not like unintelligent tricks much, but I find them amusing sometimes. I do not like arguments that purely exist so that your opponent misses them, but I am not sure this is unique to "tricks" as opposed to other areas of debate.
- Some tricks, on the contrary, are quite intelligent. Well-developed logical arguments that reach seemingly odd or unintuitive conclusions might be considered a trick by some, but many of these arguments are really quite fun to me. Tricks or tricky arguments that are well-developed make me really happy!
- If I didn't flow it, it doesn't exist.
- In debate, ethical confidence makes more intuitive sense to me than ethical modesty.
- Probably my favorite part of debate, but also frequently bastardized.
- People who know what they're talking about are good!
- I think tech and efficiency on framework debates is sometimes my favorite part of debate.
- The NC AC 1NC makes me happy.
- I do not like impact justified frameworks.
- I am sad that phil debate is frequently seen as being the same as tricks debate.
- I am not paradigmatically against Non-T affs. I did read them in my career. I do not like it when debaters pretend to be topical when they are not. Consequently, I do not believe there are "pseudo-topical" affs.
- Many word PIKs are silly to me. People shouldn't use slurs, but I am not sure other words are significant enough to justify word PIKs. Part of the reason many of them feel silly to me is because they are very rarely taken seriously by the people who read them.
- I do not think framework Ks are voting issues. I also really strongly dislike the way framework Ks are read. I think there are genuinely interesting points of philosophical interest to consider when thinking about whether an author's personal views can be disconnected from philosophy, but this debate is never had.
- A lot of K debate can be somewhat boring. Debaters frequently only extend taglines and rely on buzzwords and judge familiarity to get away with arguments. Redundancy and lack of specificity are things I strongly dislike and something I observe on a lot of K debates.
- A lot of continental philosophy sounds and looks like actual nonsense. I do not like personally trying to make sense out of nonsense nor do I like it when other people try and do it. The more I study analytic philosophy, the less appreciation I have for the esoteric and often unnecessary language in continental philosophy. Because of that, I also have even less appreciation for the esoteric and often unnecessary language debaters use in debate as they try and replicate that philosophy.
- I am not super into the call-out culture that debate sometimes has. I think this is a particularly untenable model in the context of HS debate, given that many of these people are minors. I think genuinely serious accusations should be brought to administrative adults in the community or, if necessary, other authorities. I am sympathetic to the idea that one might not want to debate someone who has done something problematic, especially to them, but I am unsure whether rounds themselves are a productive or good channel to communicate this issue with. I am also sympathetic to many of the reasons why one might not want to approach authorities or other adults in the community, but this does not wholly convince me that rounds are the solution to this problem. If I am put in the position to resolve issues related to serious violations of personal safety e.g. things that would constitute violations of the law, I will probably contact tab unless I have a very good reason not to. For issues that do not fall into that category, if I feel qualified to evaluate them, I will do so as I would a normal debate. If I feel that your "call-out" appeared unnecessary, unproductive, and done for the purpose of strategic value or for the sake of ethos guised in trying to be good, I will, at a minimum, tank your speaks.
- These debates are cool, but I will preface this by saying that coming from the Northeast means that I come from an area that really sucks at case debate and substance.
- Making creative solves case arguments is awesome, especially against affs that one wouldn’t think could be solved by the PIC (i.e. phil affs, K affs).
- I think LDers should utilize more of some of the weighing mechanisms and rhetoric used in policy (uniqueness args, sufficiency, etc)
- Structural violence makes me sad as a framework.
Non-T/K v Fwk/Theory
- The more I think about impact turns to theory/fwk, the less I am convinced they're voting issues. To me, they're either one of two things: 1) impact turns to the literal content of the shell e.g. fairness/education bad, in which case they warrant an RVI or 2) impact turns to the act of reading theory, which is meta theory. In my experience, it is very rarely justified as either.
- I do not think education is the most important impact of debate. I think fairness is the only thing that debate needs to be debate. It being a gateway to education is just an interesting FYI, not a reason education is preferable.
- Fairness bad arguments are really confusing sometimes.
- Framework is probably true.
1) Be nice
2) Know what you’re talking about
3) Line by line stuff
4) Explain arguments
Not To Do:
- Endorsing oppression
- Being demeaning to people who are obviously not as experienced as you
- Being demeaning
- I will not evaluate "give me higher/30 speaks" arguments.
Technical Debate Things
- Spreading faster than you can
- Saying “gut check”
- Shadow extensions
- Putting case on the bottom of substance
- Not giving roadmaps by flows but instead by arguments
harvard update: “let’s steamroll these bowls”
emory update: "let's seize these keys" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 12/03/18
apple valley update: "let's grapple these apples" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 10/29/18
Hello! I’m Elizabeth Zhang, a senior at Princeton High School who has competed on both the local and the national circuit in Lincoln-Douglas for the past three years.
I will vote off the flow based on who has the most offense under the winning framework.
- I have no preference for whether you sit or stand, how fast you talk, etc.
- Make sure to do work on the framework-level of the debate and make specific arguments on why I should prefer your framework over your opponents. Also, don’t debate your value in the round. It’s almost always pointless, I’ll ultimately be looking at your value criterion anyway.
- Please extend your arguments! I won’t accept new arguments in later speeches and I'll view any arguments you don't extend as dropped, so extensions are necessary.
- I’ll evaluate arguments based on whatever weighing is given to me in the round, so weigh, weigh, weigh.
- During your rebuttals, please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow).
- In your last speech, summarize the major arguments in the round and give me a route to the ballot - ideally, you should be writing the RFD for me.
- Make sure to explicitly link your impacts back to either your framework or your opponent's framework (ideally both!).
At the end of the day, I believe debate is an educational activity, so learn a lot, be respectful, and have fun!