Tabroom.com

The 15th Scarsdale Invitational

2018 — Scarsdale, NY/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Vinay Arora Syosset HS None

Elias Benghiat Lexington HS

Sanjana Bhatnagar Scarsdale HS

Lily Cai Edgemont HS

Last changed on Fri December 8, 2017 at 9:33 AM EDT

Lily Cai
Edgemont 2019

Conflicts
Edgemont High School

Major Influences

Matt Malia

Brian Manuel
Michael Antonucci

General

I see debate as an educational game. You can do whatever you want to as long as you don’t/aren’t
- Offensive
- Exceed speech time
- Misrepresent/clip cards

To me, being a judge is simply being a listener of your arguments.

Anything can be debated, there is no "moral bottom line" so to speak, where certain arguments cannot be made (death good, cap good, racism good-but I might give you really weird looks and your speaks might be seriously impacted). If you win the argument you win, I won't intervene and drop you on some non-existent moral bottom line.

I don’t necessarily abide by truth > tech or tech > truth. I follow the flow, but truth makes the flow more compelling.

I think argument flexibility is good and important. At least attempt to be ideologically flexible, as in be accepting of other arguments, if you don’t have the technical abilities to be argumentatively flexible.

An ideal debate involves good communication, creativity, and clash. I think the role of ballot is who did the best debating, the rest are self- serving and arbitrary.

The aff should at least have something to do with the topic and defend some form of departure from status quo. There should be an advocacy that the aff can be held to and the advocacy should be supported by academically sound evidences. (If you read 10 random cards about things like dark matter cards and call that a 1AC I won't like it very much) I also want to have a topical aff, if you do read an advocacy I am very lenient with frame work.

TKOs are in play, quoting Brian Manuel's judge philosophy:

"T.K.O (Technical Knockout) basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?"

I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates. If they are reading a plan I will have a high threshold for T arguments.

Biases
- Cross ex wins debates. It’s also the only time I know for sure you aren’t reading blocks.
- I don’t like theory debates, but theory arguments can be strategic.
- 2 conditional advocacies is totally fine, 3 requires the neg to do some work justifying it.
- Overviews are useful but only do so if arguments cannot be answered on the flow.

K Affs vs Framework
I am not as much a fw but if it is planless then I will be more than happy to vote for it.
of well-run framework arguments.

I think K/performance affs are definitely valuable but can sometimes get a little ridiculous.

Affs should defend some sort of an advocacy that they can be held to, unless they have a good reason as to why they shouldn't be held to an advocacy. If you read two poems and talk about yourself and say "vote me" that won't go well.

Impact out well and really explain.

T
Again,
I don’t feel super qualified judging high level T debates.
I am more lenient with the AFF if they are topical and you just read it so you an exclude them. But feel free to run it and I will evaluate it.

DA/Case Debate
- Impact framing determines most of these debates.
- I will vote on zero risk of case/DA/whatever if framed as such.

This is pretty bread and butter, nothing much else to be said about here.

CP
I'm fine with it but please make it clear to me what exactly the counterplan does and how it differs from the aff.
PICs are totally fine, aff winning theory arguments generally at most means rejecting the argument instead of rejecting the team.
Competition is the important
Also, you should have a Net Benefit or I will be more than happy to vote on perm

K
I am more a K debater

- Link magnitude is super important - if you only go for a Crenshaw silence link and don't explain how that specifically leads to your Wildersonian ontological impacts, I won't give you that impact.
- Sometimes you don't need to win an alternative.
- I am fine with them but some really high theory needs a lot of work and explanation then just: they are something and we win
-Specific links matter to me, don't just do generic links and stuff. If that's the case then I won't just give it to you

Teckhua Chiang Scarsdale HS 8 rounds None

Samuel Cogen Needham HS None

Wolf Cukier Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Sun December 3, 2023 at 11:56 AM EDT

(Last updated November 2023)

Princeton Update: I have not judged LD since Princeton last year — please go at about 80% speed — I will SLOW and CLEAR with no penalty though.

Hello, I'm Wolf (he/him). I debated LD for Scarsdale High School 2016-2020 and am in the Princeton Class of 2024 and (sometimes) compete in Parli debate. Email: wolfcukier@gmail.com.

Generally I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible but we all know what that means changes on what our biases are so here is my paradigm.

VLD:

Overall I will try not to be biased against any arguments that aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semetic, etc. That being said, I debated in a relatively narrow way and will probably be better at judging what I debated.

Quick Prefs:

Tricks: 1

Theory: 1/2

Phil: 1/2

LARP: 2

Ks: 3

Trad: 4/5

General Stuff:

The only rules of debate are sides, speech-times, and the existence of the topic (this does not mean you must follow it, just that there is a difference between reading something for the current topic vs. anything else).

I will flow off the doc, assuming you sent it to your opponent. Flowing was one of my weak points as a debater and I don't think that my lack of skill should negatively impact you when I am judging.

I will say SLOW or CLEAR as many times as needed without docking speaks. If you need to SLOW or CLEAR your opponent, do so, but be aware I will be annoyed if you are faster or more unclear that your opponent when you called them on it.

I have a very low threshold for extensions: If no ink was put on your NC, saying "extend the NC" or "they dropped the NC" is sufficient for me to consider it in my decision. That being said, you should still probably flesh out your extension more so I know how to use it in my decision but if it is obvious, I generally wont penalize you.

Defaults:

These are only defaults--not biases (I think some of these are false but are the most equitable to assume)-- to be used if no one even vaguely mentions one of them. If someone initiates a debate on one of these arguments I will evaluate the debate from a blank slate. One theme you might notice in these is when you initiate something like theory, you must be sure to justify the paradigmatic issues for the round.

Truth Testing (this might actually be a bias)

Permissibility Negates

Competing Interps

Yes RVIs

Edu and Fairness not voters

Drop the Arg on Theory, Drop the Debater on T

TT does not take out theory.

If an argument explicitly indicts another, it comes 1st (assuming the indict only goes one way).

Text > Spirit

I will not default to presumption except explicitly triggered.

Tricks:

I read these pretty much every round I could get away with them. As long as something has a semblance of a warrant I will probably vote off of it if it was won. That being said, please be honest about them in CX. If someone asks where your a prioris are and you say "whats an a priori" I will be slightly annoyed (unless obviously played as a joke). Also, most tricks do not survive any encounter with a response — the attempt to win that the US really is a landmass when your opponent caught it will most likely fail.

Theory/T:

Go for it. The only brightline for what counts as frivolous theory is what you can justify in round. If you can win it, I'll vote on it. See above for my defaults. Be sure to implicate the theory shell in the round-- you still need to justify drop the debater or why fairness is a voter. Be sure to weigh between standards.

Phil:

Looking back, this is the area of debate where I wish I invested more time in. I generally should have a sense of what everything is but the less well known in debate a philosopher is, the more you should explain it. Feel free to run high theory but the only real high theorist that I read was Deleuze.

LARP:

Be sure to justify Util or whatever framework you are using if you are running LARP, but besides that I should be good for this. I generally don't give as much weight to cards as other judges for things like analysis so just be aware of that. I generally read LARP in rounds where I could not get away with a more abusive strategy but always shied away from LARP v LARP debates. If you get into one of those card-fests-- weigh!!!

Ks:

Feel free to read these but be aware that I never really read them when I was a debater. My knowledge of most K lit is sorely lacking so you probably need to explain stuff to me more. I also probably care more about the line by line in this debate than the average K judge. I do think K debate is valuable and will do my best to judge it well but I probably lack the skills and background to do as well of a job at this as you would like me to if you run Ks. (That was a mouthful of a sentence).

K update: Note that as I’ve been judging I’m finding I appreciate Ks a lot more than when I was a debater. The above still applies but if you are a K debater, read a K in front of me.

Speaks:

Speaks will be awarded for strategic debate, executing a strategy that I am not good at judging cleanly (like clearly winning a K in front of me), and generally doing a good job.

Speaks will be lowered for poor strategic decisions, failing to collapse where prudent, problematic statements or args that don't rise to the level of dropping you, not weighing, and making the round impossible for me to judge (not just b/c it was messy-- messy rounds happen, but no one reading a standard for instance or having two competing standards with no clash)

I will try to average a 28.7 and to give a 29+ to everyone I think performed well enough to break. (update: its higher)

NLD:

In these debates I expect that no one talks above a fast conversational pace.

Morality = Justice (Please don't debate between these two)

PLEASE WEIGH!!!!!!!!! Oftentimes the round comes down to whoever weighs more.

I evaluate the round by first picking the framework which is best won and then voting for the debater with the most offense under that framework.

I will listen but not flow CX

In Novice LD I expect nothing to be more tech than contentions. If you know what DAs or CPs are you can run them as contentions.

I have a low threshold for extensions- If your util FW is conceded and there is no opposing FW "extend the util FW" is sufficient

NPF

I am a LD debater so there are some things I am not used to in this activity

I evaluate the debate under an offense/defense paradigm. This means that winning that your opponents offense is not true is sufficient.

Please weigh between your offense and your opponents offense.

Elizabeth Ding Lexington HS

ZoÃ« Ewing Byram Hills HS

Last changed on Tue October 15, 2019 at 8:32 AM EDT

Hi! I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2017, going to TOC twice and clearing there as a senior. I coached Byram Hills for two years. I've also worked at camps every summer since graduating, as Co-Assistant Director of NSD Philly 2019 and as a lab leader at NSD Flagship 2017-2019, TDC 2018, and VBI LA I 2017.

Email: zoeewing99@gmail.com Please put me on email chains!

General

I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and some framing as to why they're relevant. Don't assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument.

I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on almost* any argument as long as it a) is not abhorrent and b) contains a logical warrant. Examples of arguments I would not vote on include "racism/sexism/homophobia good" (because those are abhorrent) or "the sky is blue so affirm" (because that lacks a logical warrant).

*I've added a couple of exceptions, scroll down to the "other notes" section to see them.

Please slow down on interpretations, advocacy/framing mechanism texts, and author names. I don't check speech docs in round, so don't bank on me reading along with your speech. I only check speech docs if some detail is contested or if it's my fault that I miss something.

I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues. I am fine stopping rounds in instances where a debater is unable to debate due to triggering material--please let me know if this happens. I expect the debater who failed to give a trigger warning to concede the round in such instances.

Defaults
These should never be relevant because I will never use a default if an argument is made on either side of the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.

Truth testing over comparing worlds
Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. It would probably not work out in your favor.
Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
No RVIs (and if the RVI is won, I meets do not trigger RVIs)
Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill/argument quality (in other words, the person I would give higher speaks to).
I don't think a default for whether Ks or theory should come first in the abstract is possible since they're both just pre-fiat arguments about what debate should look like. I'd default to whichever position indicts the other probably, but these positions frequently indict each other, so weighing really matters here. Just make those meta-level framing arguments and avoid chicken-and-egg debates.

Important note on defaults: If both debaters carry out the debate under some shared framing assumption that was not argued for, I will use that shared assumption as my default rather than these (i.e. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in their 2NR and 2AR but forget to read a voter, I would act as if a voter had been read rather than intervene, cross all theory off the flow, and vote for some random 1AR substance extension).

Other Notes

Please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
I end up judging a lot of rounds that result in determining the validity of very short arguments made early in rounds that end up mattering much more later in the round (e.g. spikes). These often rely on making judgments on the weight of each argument on a somewhat arbitrary basis. I do everything I can to evaluate the round in a non-interventionist manner, but the burden is on debaters to prevent situations in which intervention could occur. If you plan to muddle rounds to sufficiently confuse your opponent to win, please ensure that you are not also confusing your judge to the point where I cannot easily trace your path to the ballot.
To be more specific about the previous point, if a round has two contradictory spikes that indict each other and one debater wins one spike and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!
NEW: 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 theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument is legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.
I require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots please! If someone makes an I meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), I default to the I meet being true (innocent until proven guilty).
I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T.
Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent and judges! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are sometimes hardest to flow.
If I have met you at previous tournaments or camps, please don't make conversation with me that could make your opponent feel excluded. I promise that reminding me that I have judged you before or that you know students I coach will not have any bearing over whether I will vote for you--I would have marked you as a conflict if that were true, and it just leaves your opponent feeling rattled and unsure of whether I will be impartial. I have been on the opposite end of this enough times to know how much it sucks when it looks like your opponent and judge are friends.

Speaks

I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round behavior. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. I do not disclose speaks during the RFD but will if you come to find me individually or email me after the round.

I dock speaks for:

Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
Lack of framing issues
Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
Stealing prep time/not being ready/delaying the round in any way
Having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc
Talking about what I did as a debater or making personal appeals to me, talking about my former teammates, the debaters I coach, or well-known people in the activity--this excludes people with less "rep" or fewer connections in debate and makes everyone uncomfortable

Have fun—this is your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.

Mark Fakler Byram Hills HS

Simran Gandhi Lexington HS

Riya Ganpati Edgemont HS

Sally Ho Scarsdale HS

Brian Huang Syosset HS 8 rounds None

Felicity Huang Scarsdale HS 8 rounds

Justin Kahn Newtown High School

Nate Kruger Hunter College

Last changed on Fri May 7, 2021 at 3:36 PM EDT

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I'm currently a 2n at wake forest where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda.

please read some interesting k stuff i am so bored

Short Version:

Read whatever you want as long as it's not oppressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXLu_x0SRm4

i know i've got a tricks rep in ld but keep in mind i'm literally a policy k debater now lmao i promise you anything and everything is good in front of me. keep in mind i'm a bored college student, if you read or go for a really cool strat, read some dope k lit, or just have a really interesting and in depth round your speaks will absolutely benefit.

If you're rushing through prefs, use this as a guide:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory/Tricks - 2 (probably could be a 1 i'm 100% down and happy to vote on this i'm just a fyo so u may not want me for a super dense trix round)

LARP - 3

Super dense or difficult to understand K - 2/3

Long Version:

I primarily read different stuff each year. Sophomore year I was all about soft-left affs and larp. Junior year I read a ton of tricks and phil stuff. Senior year I mostly read Deleuze and Psychoanalysis. At Wake so far it's cap and Afrofuturism.

Err on the side of over-explaining super dense k lit. I'll vote on it but if you read something like Baudrillard and assume I know everything you're talking about your speaks will suffer.

Other stuff:

- Don't read afropess if you aren't black. If your opponent reads afropess and isn't black, make that argument, and you'll win. To clarify, this is within the round. If you want to argue that your opponent read it previously and should be dropped, I'm 100% happy and willing to vote on that, but I'll evaluate it as I would any other argument.

- If you want to make an evidence ethics or clipping allegation, tell me to stop the round and I'll evaluate the allegation. W30 to whoever wins and L25 to whoever loses.

- Email me or message me on FB w/ any questions!

Things I'll boost speaks for:

- Clever analytic PICs

- Well executed one off skep against phil or larp

- Well executed one off kritik against k affs

- Understanding your positions and explaining them well (please don't read stuff you don't understand)

- Making fun of any of the following people in a funny and not-too-offensive manner: Scott Klein, Matt Liu, Elizabeth Lee, Zach Lu, Curtis Chang, Jalyn Wu, Amanda Huang, Chris Xu, Annie Wang, anyone on Hunter LD

- Setting up the email chain before I get there, or you walk in if you're flight two

Jason Lan Syosset HS

Nikki Lerner Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Sat November 17, 2018 at 10:41 AM EDT

Hey y’all, my name’s Nikki! I’m a junior at Scarsdale High School and I’ve been on the Lincoln Douglas for 3 years! I’m mostly judging novices this year, but if I do end up judging JV/Academy, I’ll include my preferences for that here as well.

General Prefs:

· Sit or stand, whatever’s most comfortable for you

· Please time yourselves, it’s your responsibility

· If you don’t weigh between arguments or extend them, I will not be able to evaluate the round

· If you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give you 0 speaks

· If you're funny, if you give me food or coffee, or if you make a rupaul's drag race reference that is relevant, your speaks will go up .5

·I don't flow cx unless there is a concession brought up in an actual speech, but I still would like you to ask interesting and critical questions

·I allow flex prep

Novices:

· Make sure to speak LOUDLY and CLEARLY, you’ll be rewarded with higher speaks and my better understanding of your arguments so I can better evaluate

· Make sure to weight your arguments!!! This is key for clash in the round so I can actually evaluate the round to my highest ability; you will also receive higher speaks

· If you have an interesting CX, your speaks will go up

JV:

General

o I can understand spreading but flash me your case or email at: nlerner20@scarsdaleschools.org

o I will say CLEAR or SLOW if needed

o Please don’t be mean and run theory or a high theory K on an unexperienced debater; I will evaluate because I have to, but will dock speaks

Theory

o I’m not the biggest fan of theory, but will evaluate it if it’s actually warranted, I HATE frivolous theory

o Weigh! Between! Standards!

o I default to competing interps and no RVIs unless proven otherwise

o I am also a strong believer that K>Theory so unless proven otherwise, that is my default

Kritiks

o I am mainly a kritik debater so I am familiar with most K lit

o Make sure you actually understand the lit you’re reading because if you don’t actually know what it means (and therefore cannot extend or respond to turns), it won’t look good for you

o Even though my default in K>Theory, I’d still like for you to elaborate on why Education>fairness and why it also precludes framework

CP’s/DA’s

o Great, cool, make sure you weigh and impact or else I won’t evaluate

o If no FW is read, I won’t be very pleased; I’ll assume util, but may dock speaks

Framework/Phil

o I love a good framework debate, please do a good job weighing and impacting

o I’m familiar with a bunch of high theory and most debate philosophers, but pretend I don’t and over explain it

Evan Li Lexington HS

Daniel Lin Princeton None

Alan Liu Ridge High School

Claire Liu Stuyvesant HS

Bohan Ma Scarsdale HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 16, 2021 at 1:58 PM EDT

Hi I’m Bohan (I use He/Him/His pronouns). I’m currently an undergrad sophomore at NYU, double majoring in International Relations and Econ. I went to Scarsdale high school where I debated LD primarily on the national circuit. I spent three years competing in LD but I also have previous experience in Extemp.

Please include me on the email chain: bohan.ma@nyu.edu or bohan.ma@icloud.com

FYI:

A: I was never that good of a debater to start with.

B: In high school I mostly read theory, LARP, occasionally tricks (weird NE stuff), and have experience responding to most frameworks including high theory and Ks.

C: It has been almost three years since I have competed on the circuit, thus you're going to be patient with me. Instead of trying to pretend that I’m your average lab leader from debate camp, I’m going to be honest and say that at this point, I’m practically a lay judge, sorry.

——————

TLDR: I will try my best and vote off anything sufficiently warranted, mostly tech > truth.

——————

Paradigm - General Information

*Please Pre-flow before you come in the room, if you flow before a round I will deduct your speaker points. (also this applies to everything else you do before a round)

*Be nice to your opponents, there is a difference between assertiveness and being mean.

*Please don't make weird impact turns (i.e. racism good) I will only accept your impact turns if the warrants are somewhat reasonable.

*Signpost! Tell me when you are moving on from the NC to AC and vice versa; you should also try to number your responses.

*Make sure you are reading your card tags right (i.e. "Harris 10...") If I don't catch your cards, I won’t flow it.

*NLD rounds should be at least somewhat topical

*Please weigh! Use the weighing mechanisms and tell me why you should win the round.

*Impact your cards and arguments! Explain why they matter.

*Overviews to speeches are highly encouraged.

Speed:

*I should be fine with most speeds but I’m not as fast as I was so I might say “slow” during your speech.

*Please be clear, I will say "clear" if I can't understand what you are saying.

*Slightly slowdown on tags, analysis etc.

Speaker Points:

*Speaker points will be evaluated based on strategy, organization, and clarity.

*I give low point wins when permitted

*Speaker pt. disclosure upon request when permitted

LARP:

*I will vote off anything that is sufficiently warranted

*Make sure your PIC/CP is competitive to the Plan. It is the Neg's burden to prove that your CP is mutually exclusive / competitive.

Theory/K:

*I will vote off anything that is sufficiently warranted

*Please flush out blippy arguments (this honestly goes for everything else in debate but its especially important for Theory and Ks)

Tricks:

*Generally tech over truth

*I will vote off anything that is sufficiently warranted

*Don't be sketchy during CX, you know who you are. You will be penalized.

Evidence Ethics:

*If you are caught intentionally mis-cutting a card I will drop you and give you a L20

*Don't power tag cards or anything sketchy like that. You will be penalized.

*Just be honest with your cards, it's not too hard.

Other Thoughts:

Relax, losing isn't the end of the world.

Have some fun and hang out with your friends!

I know the struggle of getting judge screwed and nonsensical RFDs, I will try my best to be a good judge I promise.

———————

Debate should be a safe space, please talk to me, a trusted adult, or coach if anyone makes you feel threatened, unsafe, or uncontrollable at any point during your tournaments.

I have zero patience for un-inclusiveness in or out of rounds

Narasi Motaganahalli Syosset HS None

Will Musoff Scarsdale HS

Lindsey Perlman Byram Hills HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 9, 2021 at 11:02 AM EDT

Byram Hills '19

UPenn '23

lindseyperlman14@gmail.com

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.***

Elizabeth Ramski Roslyn HS None

Megan Ren Lexington HS None

Matthew Repecki Harrison

Maria Savransky Bergen County Academies

Last changed on Fri September 17, 2021 at 6:38 PM EDT

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

Amy Stern Byram Hills HS None

Matt Sussman Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Sun April 26, 2020 at 9:16 AM EDT

Hello, I'm Matt Sussman. I'm a Senior at Scarsdale High School, and I've done LD for the last four years.

Short Version (TLDR):

-Read what you want, I’ll evaluate any arguments

-CLASH AND WEIGH

-Be respectful and nice

-Ask me questions, my job is to help you get better at debate

LD in general:

-My email is mattsuss01@yahoo.com

-Be nice and respectful to both me and your opponent

-Sit or Stand – doesn’t matter

-I have a pretty low threshold for extensions – If something is conceded, say extend _____ and explain why that matters in the grand scheme of the round

-If it's not on my flow, I won’t vote on it

-Don't say something is conceded unless your opponent clearly doesn’t respond to it

-Keep your own time

-The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more

-If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, overtly ableist etc. I will stop the round and give you a L20

-If you have a question about my paradigm ask me before the round

Speaker Points

-I try to average a 28 to 27.5 for Novice

-Things that get you good speaks: Strategy, good CX, interesting and unique arguments, interesting rounds, weighing, good crystallization, you read my paradigm or being funny

-Things that hurt speaks: being offensive, being rude, being late or being overly condescending in CX

Novice LD

-My job is to help you get better at debate, so please ask questions

-Go at a speed your opponent can understand

-I’ll disclose who won at the end of the round and give suggestions for what you could improve on

-Please write down my comments

-Don’t be frustrated about my decision, try to learn and ask questions

-CLASH! Respond to your opponents arguments in both framework and contention

-Morality = Justice (Unless you tell me otherwise)

-Be strategic - think about the arguments you are making and what they do for you in the round

JV LD

General

- I am a tech debater and would LOVE to judge a tech round

- Be conscious of your opponent’s skill level and what your opponent is comfortable with

- You can spread in front of me – I will call SLOW and CLEAR and LOUD without hurting your speaks

- Slow down for author names, tag lines and other important information

- Use flash or email chain

- Compiling a speech file counts as prep, but sending a doc or flashing a doc is not

- I default to Truth Testing

- I default to Metatheory>T>Theory>K>Phil>Substance

Theory/T

- The strategy is most of my rounds – I’m pretty capable to vote on theory

- Frivolous Theory is usually acceptable – be conscious skill level

- I default to yes RVIs, Fairness and Education are voters, Drop the Debater, and Competing Interps

- I default to text over spirit of the interp

- I default to pragmatics over semantics

- Weigh between standards

- I’ll vote off disclosure, but I don’t think it should be norm for JV

Phil

- I am familiar with the basic philosophers

- I somewhat understand most other philosophers but please be clear in round of what they say or advocate for

- For most high theory – overexplain

- Rounds with a good phil debate are underrated and should happen more often

- Although not my favorite, I’ll still evaluate

- Explain why the K is pre-fiat or I will evaluate it as substance and also why the K comes before other arguments

- Weigh role of the ballots against counter-role of the ballots

- Role of the ballots should be accessible by your opponent

Non-T Affs/Performance

- I will evaluate these, but you need to explain why I am voting on these and how to vote on these

- Be clear with your advocacy and what we are getting out of this round

CPs/DA

- <3 Larp - these are underused

- If we are not evaluating under util, then explain to me how these still link

- Don’t over exaggerate the impacts

Tricks/Spikes

- Very Strategic

- I’ll vote off them if they’re on my flow

- Give me implications and why that matter in the round

Ethan Voskoff Harrison

Last changed on Sat December 15, 2018 at 8:08 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Ethan. I am a junior at Harrison High School and this is my third year of debate.

TL;DR

*NOTE FOR REGIS

i am EXTREMELY HUNGRY.

IF YOU BRING ME 2 CHICK’N SHACKS + 1 CHOCOLATE MILK SHAKE + 1 REGULAR FRIES, I WILL GIVE YOU NO LOWER THAN A 29. THANK YOU AND HAVE A NICE DAY.

1. Please weigh!

2. Signpost all of your arguments please tell me where you are on the flow

3. Anything goes, with a few exceptions that are listed below

Arguments that I won't vote on:

1. Really terrible, blippy spikes (yes this is arbitrary, but you need to have WARRANTS for your spikes in order for me to evaluate them)

2. A prioris

Any FW is fine - super in-depth phil stuff needs to be well explained

Util vs deont debates are super difficult. Please explain everything

Probably my favorite strat. Ks with specific, topic-grounded links and tangible alts are the best

Mindset shift alts are fine as well

Please don't misrepresent your authors. Know what they say.

Please explain if the alt is pre or post fiat.

Theory/T

You need to SLOW DOWN if your A-Strat is to read 7 NC shells with 1025i76587 standards and independent voters

Defaults: Competing interps, DTD on T and theory, no RVIs on theory, yes RVIs on T, fairness and education are both voters

CPs/DAs

I like policy stuff. PTX DAs are less intriguing, but i'll still vote on them

* YOUR UQ EV MUST BE FROM AT MOST 6 MONTHS AGO, NO LATER.

PICs are cool

If you're going HAM for extinction, please explain the link chain. I'm sympathetic to "the chances of extinction happening because of Civil Disobedience are close to 0 so disregard their impacts."

Non-T AFFs

I prefer AFFs that are topical, but I'm fine with non-T AFFs as well

Please explain why the form of education/liberation/advocacy skills that your AFF presents is the most important in the round

Humor is absolutely awesome and will get you bonus speaks

Don't be rude!

Flex prep is fine

Use all of your CX time

Miscellaneous

I'm fairly expressive, so my facial expressions might differ based on certain arguments in the round

Don't be mean

Rickert is not a good argument

IF YOU ARE A NOVICE AND YOU WANT TO USE AN EMAIL CHAIN, PLEASE USE ETHANCHUK@GMAIL.COM

^ also, please please please please please don't try to spread.

IF YOU ARE NOT A NOVICE, PLEASE USE HARRISON.DEBATE.TEAM@GMAIL.COM

Carolyn Walker-Diallo Poly Prep Country Day School 8 rounds None

Annie Wang The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Tue March 28, 2023 at 10:36 AM EDT

Note: Made some edits to my paradigm since I'm a 3rd year out now...

Hi! I debated LD for Bronx Science (NY) for 4 years, qualled to TOC senior year. I'm studying Philosophy right now at Johns Hopkins.

Email chain: anniewang9422@gmail.com

Quick Prefs

Pomo or High Theory Ks/Performance Ks/Phil: 1/2

FW/T: 3

Tricks/Theory: 4

Policy/LARP: 5

IR/Security Ks: 6/STRIKE

Overview

You can read whatever you want and I'll do my best to adapt. I would rather there be a good round than you trying to adapt by reading something you've never done before.
I really, really, like phil or k substantive debate (does not have to be topical but one-off NC then AC top-down strats would make me happy). Will boost speaks for a good clash.
Don't be mean in CX, especially if someone you're debating is clearly a novice/someone less experienced than you.

I read a lot of pomo Ks my senior year, the ones I'm most familiar with are Deleuze, Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Warren, Nietzsche, Marx, Edelman, and Wilderson. I don't think this list matters though I'm sure there are many books/articles written by these authors I haven't read.
I tend to err truth>tech in rep K situations where the card is miscut/misrepresented.
I don't really understand IR or Security Ks... Please over-explain.
Default Tech>>>>>>Truth unless you make arguments for otherwise.

T/Theory

I'm more familiar with T than Theory, but I guess they are structurally similar.
Case-specific standards are really cool.

Phil

Familiar with a lot of philosophy, please explain things regardless.
Slow down (please) on fully analytic phil cases. Examples are cool.

Tricks

I'm not amazing at flowing, especially blippy exempted 10 point underviews so if I miss something rip
Technicality and flowing aside. I find induction/deduction/skep debates interesting if done properly.

Policy/LARP

I'll try my best :(

Miscellaneous

1. Will yell 'clear' as many times as needed, and will probably not dock speaks but if I miss an arg it's on you. My face is pretty expressive, maybe explain more if I look confused...

2. Compiling doc is prep, sending is not, pls don't steal prep.

3. +.2 speaks if you show me your wiki BEFORE I submit the decision (osource, first 3 last 3 in the textbox, and round reports - you can attach a screenshot when sending out the speech doc)

4. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc... and don't plagiarize from people's wiki without giving credit

5. Not sure how judge kick works, be clear if that's something you are going for.

Howard Wang The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sun May 28, 2023 at 7:00 AM EDT

Update for NCFL: if you don't weigh and the round's unclear, some judge intervention is bound to happen and you won't like it.

Princeton '24

Bronx Science '20

Conflicts: Bronx Science, Poly Prep

I'm Howard! I use he/him pronouns. I debated four years of LD on the national circuit for Bronx Science. Scroll to the bottom for my views on PF.

I study philosophy and computer science at Princeton. Don't be fooled however, that does not mean I will understand your convoluted Spinoza framework or Lacan K. I don't pay attention in class.

Please tell me and your opponent your pronouns before the round or have it in your Tabroom account so it's included in the text/email blast.

Add me to the email chain: hw14[at]princeton[dot]edu. Include content warnings in both doc and speech.

————————————

LD PARADIGM

Quick Prefs

1: LARP/Util, cap & other generic Ks, theory

2: Non-T affs, identity politics, reps Ks, Topicality

3: Performance, Kant, Nietzsche, Deleuze

4: Truth-testing, high theory

5/strike: tricks, skep, frivolous theory (think AFC)

TL;DR

– Read what you want* because good, substantive debate is more important than my preferences

– Spread at 70% your max speed, slow on tags and authors

– Signpost or else I might evaluate the round in a way you don't like.

– Make as many weighing arguments as you can. Also weigh between weighing standards.

– I'm tech over truth most of the time. If you win a warranted extinction impact, sure. But I won't vote for anything like racism or death good.

* I WILL NOT VOTE FOR: skep, 1AC underview theory, anything that can be conceivably described as blippy or a spike. I do not think these are good norms for debate.

What I like to see:

– Unique, well-executed cases will make the round much more interesting to judge.

– If you're spreading, start slow then top out at around 70% of your usual speed. Slow down on tags and author names. I will say "clear" or "slow" 3 times before I stop flowing.

– Signpost. Please. I'm not great at flowing and if my flow is messy that may cost you the round.

– Strong and clear weighing/uplayering (ESPECIALLY for theory)

– Crystallizing and collapsing in your last speech, overviews, voters

– Your last speech should give me your route to the ballot as clearly as possible. Don't make me work for the RFD.

– I don't care if you curse, stand or sit, or debate in your pajamas.

– Respect your opponent. Don't be rude during CX.

– Absolutely no ad homs, bigotry, or discrimination. I will drop you on the spot.

Less relevant things to keep in mind:

– I stop flowing the second the timer goes off. I don't care about what you fit into that 5 seconds while the timer is going off.

– Do not tell me what the role of the judge is, my role is to ensure a safe and inclusive debate environment. I don't want to deal with ROJ vs. ROB debates. Similarly, do not use jurisdiction as a T voter, I like to think I can vote on whatever I want to.

– If you want to make something your opponent did an in-round independent voter, you better warrant it. If its harmful I'll tank their speaks but I'll evaluate the voter like any other argument.

– I have no strong opinions on disclosure. I don't know what the norms are these days but if your opponent discloses and you don't, that makes you look bad.

– I'll tank your speaks if you say anything along the lines of "game over," "oops, big mistake," or "you've activated my trap card." Just give the speech, you don't have to be snarky about it.

My defaults absent in-round justification:

– Comparing worlds over truth testing (I still don't know how to evaluate a round under truth testing, sue me)

– Competing interps and drop the argument for theory, reasonability and drop the debater for T, no RVIs

– Aff gets bias

– Layering: T > ROB = 1AR/Meta-theory > NC theory > K > substance

————————————

PF Notes

Since I have a background in LD, I'm not a lay judge but I may view your round differently than you or another circuit PF judge would, so do not post-round me. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability, but do not be rude.

I will only consider arguments extended throughout the round into final focus. My threshold for extension quality is lower for shorter speeches, but they should still include a warrant and impact.

Speaker points are not determined by your eloquence, it is based on argumentative prowess, rebuttal quality, and strategy. For the sake of my convenience I'm giving both speakers on a team the same points unless there's a clear disparity.

I stop flowing at the timer. I do not flow crossfire. If your argument is not on my flow, that is because you did not speak clearly enough or signpost well enough. If need be, I will say "clear" at most 3 times before I stop flowing.

Jackson Weber Lexington HS

Matt Wilson Harrison None

Caroline Wong Harrison

Danny Zhang Niskayuna High School

Login to Tabroom

The 15th Scarsdale Invitational

2018 — Scarsdale, NY/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

Judges