Traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed or negated through strong, sound, and logical arguments.

Please enunciate clearly. While spreading can be advantageous in your rebuttals, please do not forsake the quality of your arguments for speed, especially during your construct.

I value respect so please be mannerly in your conduct toward judge and fellow opponent.

I have judged at local and national tournaments.

I am a former competitor of Extemporaneous Speaking and have some background in Public Forum. Spread all you want, go nuts

Scarsdale '21, MIT '25

FB: Curtis Chang

Email: caiti008@gmail.com

I'm Curtis (He/Him)

BE ON TIME OR I WILL DOCK SPEAKS

i prefer speech drop but am fine with email

i literally do not know what the topic is so don't assume i know anything. i have not judged debate in over a year so START SLOW, I AM NOT AFRAID TO YELL SLOW/CLEAR/LOUDER AS MANY TIMES AS NEEDED AND WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS IF YOU DO NOT DO SO; anything i don't flow is on you (although i haven't flowed in over a year either so i'm probably not great at that too)

not loving the increasing trend towards massive prepped out analytic dumps :/ if you're reading one i'd prefer you send it to help me follow along, but i'll reward debaters who clearly are extemping smart arguments instead of just reading out of files in rebuttals. i also REALLY hate args like "eval after X" and "no neg args" so i'll begrudgingly vote on it only if it's completely conceded (UPDATE: on second thought i hate these args too much and i will not vote on these. examples of things on this list: GSP, Zeno's Paradox, eval after 1nc, no neg args. things not on this list: presumption/permissibility triggers out of frameworks, i actually love this and went for them a lot. unclear about an argument? just message me)

probably sort of out of touch with debate now but i'll attach my caselist wikis from when i debated for 19-20 (aff, neg) and 20-21 (aff, neg) so let that influence how to pref me however you want. i'll do my best to be tab/evaluate the flow still, so read whatever you want; my ideological preferences are much less strong than they used to be, although i'll still be upset if you read a shitstorm of a prioris and really fucking terrible theory arguments

most importantly have fun! im only judging for fun so pls don't take me/the round too seriously

I have no background in debate. However, with a PhD from MIT, I understand how to follow an argument and, most importantly, evaluate how well a line of reasoning is supported by valid evidence. What I mean by valid is that all data, findings, and expert opinions must be rigorously derived and presented to be counted. Feel free to challenge anything otherwise. In terms of communication, I don't mind fast pace, but you must be understandable at all times. Good luck to both sides!

Hi! I am very excited to be judging Novice LD at this year's Princeton Classic. I am a sophomore at Princeton, I've done other forms of debate. This is my first experience with LD. Please treat me as essentially a lay judge. I have a strong preference against spreading. I will judge on the flow without any preconceptions, and take weighing into account, but try to convince me as a reasonable lay person as well.

Hi! I'm Eden (she/her) and I debated for Millburn ('20) for a couple of years and am now studying law at UCL in London. I mostly stuck to trad LD, but did some other things here and there.

Quick Pref:

1/2 Trad, 3 Ks, 4 LARP, 5 Anything else (phil, tricks, theory, T, etc.)

General Paradigm:

I'm definitely most comfortable with trad debates but you can read anything you're comfortable with as long as it isn't offensive or hateful in any way. Please put me on the email chain if there is one; my email is eden.elder@gmail.com.

Ultimately the most important thing is to read what you're most comfortable with and I will try my best to judge whatever you choose to read :)

Trad:

I think trad debate is underrated and I really appreciate unique/strategic frameworks (speaks will reflect accordingly). Other than that, make sure your arguments are well warranted. In trad debate particularly, I think the quality of arguments are much more important than the quantity. I have a pretty low threshold for extensions– just make sure you do it. Please engage with your opponent's frameworks and impact your arguments under both framing methods! A strong argument without an impact under the winning framework means nothing in the context of the round.

Tech:

I'm definitely not the best at judging tech debates, but I have some experience with Ks and LARP if that is what you're most comfortable with. I will do my best to evaluate the entire flow regardless of how comfortable I am with evaluating the arguments presented. However, please thoroughly explain your arguments because I don't feel comfortable voting off arguments I don't understand. Also, I appreciate clear overviews!

Speaks:

I give speaks off of strategy and clarity. I also enjoy creative arguments which will be reflected in speaks.

Being rude to your opponent will result in low speaks.

If you have any other questions, you can either message me on FB (Eden Elder) or ask before the round starts.

Have fun and be nice :)

k.m.erickso@gmail.com
Current Head Coach at The Hill School (Penn.)

I'm an experienced competitor in HS Model UN/Model Congress and have experience coaching general public speaking (have taught Rhetoric at an undergraduate level), but am relatively new to the world of debate. I now coach PF events mainly, though have familiarity with trad LD as well. I have judged at local and national tournaments.

I value clear and logical argumentation, will judge flow carefully, and prefer arguments with ample evidentiary support. Please give me enough information that my job can be to weigh on the logic and persuasiveness of your speeches, not the factual accuracy (or lack thereof). Progressive arguments are fine, but highly theoretical routes will be out of my wheelhouse.

Judicious use of signposting is greatly appreciated.

Spreading is not preferred. It is your responsibility to be clear enough in your enunciation and delivery for me to understand. If I cannot audibly understand an argument, it will not be judged. Multiple requests to clarify (by saying 'CLEAR') will result in docked speaks.

In general, be courteous and respectful of one another. Yelling at/over one another in Cx/Crossfire will not be appreciated, especially in cases that disrespect or seek to minimize women/POC competitors.

Good luck, and remember to have fun :-)

Hi! I'm a fourth year out from Lexington. I'm a senior at Vanderbilt now studying Biology and Public Health with a Chinese minor (I'm also premed). I haven't judged since two years ago and haven't thought extensively about debate since three years ago.

When I debated, I liked running K's, primarily Deleuze/ high theory stuff. That being said, I'll listen to anything! You will definitely have to go slower on theory/ tech-y phil stuff (or everything since I haven't listened to spreading in legit years), but read whatever you want.

You can email me at avery.k.fortier@vanderbilt.edu if you have any questions before or after the round! Please just have fun, be nice, and try to learn something. Mostly, please be nice. I will give you higher points if you are nice.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

I am a parent judge. I like to see clear logical reasoning, best supported by facts and stats. Also, no spreading please! Conciseness is more important than speed, so please do make your arguments clear. In addition, I would like to see the extensive use of weighing. Overall, please keep in mind that it can only be a debate if your opponent and your judges can understand you, and having fun should come first! Good luck!

I request no spreading. If you do plan that, please share a copy and I can try to flow with that.

My focus shall be on the merit of the framework and the arguments and not as much on the speaking style. As long as everything is clear, and I can follow along, I will be fine. It will be a good idea to break down your cards clearly, to help me not miss anything. I expect any rebuttals to happen right after the opponent speech. For example, rebuttals to 1NC should not wait till 2AR.

I did LD for Scarsdale for 3 years and I am a freshman in college rn. My email is felicityh08@gmail.com, use it for speech docs.

I am comfortable with theory, Ks, LARP, traditional debate read what ur comfortable with. If you are reading something very dense or very original then explain it well and go slow. Spreading is fine just be clear and SIGNPOST pls :)

time yourselves and im fine if you can ask questions in CX if your opponent agrees

Speaks: be respectful to each other, strategic/smart arguments get you higher speaks, maybe extra points if you are funny

Hi all! I graduated from Lexington High School in June 2021 and I am currently a sophomore at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I have debated LD for 2 years and PF for 2 years, so I understand almost all the antics.

things that I look for in a debate:

- extending and explaining your framework(LD) + arguments across the flow

- good cross-x questions

-being respectful to your opponents

-giving voters and overview at the end of the round

and:

- do not spread while speaking (LD), can go a little fast but not too fast.

- bonus speaks for an entertaining round

If you have any questions, you may email me at this address mehr.k2k3@gmail.com --but please no scam emails .

Your reasoning should be plausible with credible evidence that is able to sway the audience, considering the classical modes of persuasion. Articulate your words clearly, follow what you say, thereby connecting with the audience. Furthermore, if a case is made and not countered/refuted, then it will be deemed as true in the round.

James Lewis
Affiliation: University School

About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed home and played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.

LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):

Edit for Durham 2024: I thought this was explicit in my paradigm, but it was not. DO NOT SPREAD. IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHEN YOU SPREAD, I DO NOT INTEND TO FOLLOW YOU ON THE CASE DOC TO TRY TO DECIPHER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME!!!!!!

Edit #2- While I'm giving the oral critique/RFD please do me the courtesy of giving me your full attention. Specifically, do not spend the critique furiously typing while I talking to you. Signal to me that you are engaged. If you're not particularly interested in my input, that's cool, just say so and I'll save my breath. (Seriously I won't be offended. It keeps things moving along quickly)

I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")

The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.

My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.

I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"

Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.

PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.

Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

Edit for TOC 2023: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.

I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.

Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.

I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.

While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.

And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.

I have never judged World Schools before. Ignore everything below

---

Auto 30s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires and prep time. Auto 29s if both teams agree to skip all crossfires, or if you offer + the other team refuses. Otherwise I cap speaks at 28. If you want lots of time to write your speech, do policy.

I have a short attention span. Don't make the round unnecessarily long, or I will be in a bad mood.

---

I debated for hunter college hs ('20) in nyc and broke at toc. I coached bronx science ('20-'21) and do some apda at harvard ('24).

1. All 1st rebuttal to 1ff extensions are fine, including offense. I don't care if you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, or extend turns or defense in 1st summary. No new 2ff weighing. I presume 1st speaking team. I have a high bar for not presuming - if it takes longer than 120 seconds for me to decide the round, I will presume. This includes when both teams are winning offense but neither weighs, even if the weighing is obvious.

2. "If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time."

Speed is fine, I will clear you if necessary, send me the doc if going 300+. Don't interrupt women in cx.

---

Theory: Paraphasing is good for debate. In general, I default reasonability. Running theory asks me to intervene, by not evaluating substance, because the in-round abuse supposedly outweighs. You have to make me actually believe that the abuse was significant and outweighs substance, or else I won't intervene. If in doubt, ask before the round.

All online tournaments: If you choose to read any cards, disclosure theory is a TKO. You must send all your case evidence in card form with reasonable context and proper cites to the email chain before you read case.

I care very little about what your evidence says, and I won't read ev unless you tell me to. In fact, I would love a round in which neither team reads any evidence. However, teams seem to be obsessive about evidence-calling, and in this online format, in-round evidence exchange is incredibly clunky and results in a colossal waste of time. Just get it over with before the round. I don't particularly care if you post it on the wiki, and it's fine if you paraphrase your cards in the speech, but the other team needs to be able to read your evidence quickly and readily without wasting everyone else's time while stealing prep time and pretending the email hasn't arrived.

I’m a parent judge. I view a debate as you trying to convince me to accept your position. I am more interested in your complete argument rather than the technicalities of whether you rebutted each claim by your opponent. If I can’t understand what you are saying or am expected to process too many points too quickly I probably won’t be able to do justice to your argument. If your argument is strong I probably don’t need to be inundated with many claims quickly. I look favorably on a strong citation to support your argument but won’t take for granted that you citing a source means it validly backs you. Please explain what the source says and why I should give it value.

I am a very traditional judge. I do not like speed. Speak at a normal pace.

No K's. Debate the topic.

Crystalize. Tell me why you won the debate. If you write out my RFD, you stand a better chance of winning.

Make sure that you bring up any cross-ex points in your next speech. Connect them to what you have said.

Overall, I want to know why you should win the round. Spell it out. If you leave it up to me, don't be surprised if I had a different takeaway than you wanted.

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

I am a parent judge with moderate experience judging LD. Here are some guidelines for winning my ballot:

1. A moderately fast pace is fine but no spreading.

2. If you extend a contention, explain why it is important that your opponent dropped. Do not just say "I extend" and move on.

3. Rudeness to opponents will not be tolerated in any form and will result in deductions from your speaker points.

4. I appreciate signposting.

5. Running CP's and complex frameworks are fine, as long as explained.

6. Only non-frivolous theory if extreme abuse.

I prefer to have cases put in file share before round starts.

Hi, I'm Matthew Repecki, I am a freshman at Rochester Institute of Technology.

What will give you higher speaks

1. Being a clear speaker

2. Signposting your arguments

3. Give clear voting issues

4. Weighing your extensions vs your opponent's extensions

5. Reading topical arguments and K's

What you will lose speaking points for

1. Being rude to your opponent

2. Sitting during your speeches and cx unless you are not physically able to stand, looking at your opponent during CX and not at me, News flash your opponent is not writing the ballot I am.

3. Arguing with me after the round, it is ok to ask questions though

4. Reading frivolous Theory or Tricks

5. Being late, I nor your opponent want to be kept waiting around, get to the round early and wait outside if you are flight 2.

Speed

I am perfectly fine with speed as long as you are clear

Tricks

Just don't read them in front of me..... at all

Theory

I am fine with Theory and I think RVI's are fine to vote on as a check against abusive theory.

If you have any questions before the round feel free to ask them.

I am a parent judge, and this is my third year judging JV Lincoln Douglas and JV Public Forum. I did not debate in HS or College and have enjoyed judging as an adult. I'm a Licensed Customs Broker with a Masters in International Business. The past 20+ years of my career in International Logistics (Imports and Exports) and Global Trade Compliance.

My paradigm is simple, follow the rules of debate and present your argument based on the resolve. Articulate your argument clearly, if you are speaking at a fast pace and are not enunciating your words I may miss what you are trying to say while I flow. Do your best to provide a convincing argument that proves your philosophy is better than your opponent's.

Most importantly...breathe. You got this!

Hey hey I'm Shannon! I competed in Pittsburgh for 3 years in high school in a traditional circuit and have been coaching at Fordham Prep since 2020. I understand most progressive stuff, but if you plan on running high level T's or insane RVI's with wacky interps thought my coffee order is an iced oat vanilla latte and I will need it to dissect what you are saying thank you.

Big believer that debate is a game, I just don't want to have to be the one to determine the rules of the game. Think how the rules of Uno change based on who you're playing with, I don't want to have to decide the rules of the round, every round.

please put me on the email chain, esp if you're spreading: scrodgers22@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. I don’t have high school or college experience in debate. I have judged a few tournaments, in LD and PF over the past 3 years.

I value arguments that are clearly articulated and presented (please do not spread), logically constructed, and are aware of their premises and implications. I also value sound evidence.

I appreciate courtesy and sportsmanship.

Finally and most importantly, I want you to have fun. If you do, I do too!

I am a parent judge. I enjoy debate and admire all of the hard work that goes into each and every debate.

I prefer you speak at a normal rate and clearly outline your framework.
I also prefer a traditional debate.

All though this is Lincoln Douglas, I prefer evidence and cards to support an argument.

Above all else, be kind and relax.

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

I am a senior at Manchester Essex Regional High School, and I am currently in my fourth year of debate. I have attended national tournaments such as Princeton and Harvard.

I like it better when you speak coherently and normally, and not as fast as you possibly can. If you speak super fast, I'll have more trouble understanding you, which could negatively affect you during the debate. Please, I beg you, don't speak super fast. I'm not going to mark off points for not being able to finish your thoughts. You speak more than once, so you can always wrap up in the next section, if it's that important.

Sorry if I sound super condescending and annoying, I don't mean to be like that, I'm actually pretty chill and epic. I just have a hard time understanding people who speak really fast.

I am a parent judge who has judged ~ 25 debates.

I appreciate slow and clearly articulated argumentation. I expect debaters to demonstrate respect for their opponents and their opponents' arguments. I will not tolerate condescending and disrespectful behavior.

hullo, i'm kathy! any pronouns are fine.

email chain: kathywang098 [a] gmail.com

UPDATE FOR D8: i've been really out of the college policy scene for the past few years & this is the first time i'm judging at a tournament on the topic, so please keep that in mind! i think at this point it'd be helpful for y'all to slow down a little and err on overexplaining if you can - i'm very unfamiliar with the topic lit and haven't personally been doing any research for it at all. hoping some things will just be muscle memory, but i appreciate the patience regardless.

--

as you can see from the rest of this paradigm, a lot of my judging experience is with LD -- i've bolded anything of note/applicable in the ld paradigm below, but i'll try and consolidate everything here. feel free to also ask me any other questions, either through email or before round or however! here's a super quick paradigm:

- bg: i debated for nyu and graduated in 2020 and was quite a partner-hopper LOL. i was mostly-but-not-always a 2a and read lots of non-t affs, but have also been a 2n for like, disads and framework. in my time judging ld i have voted on everything from disads to performance affs to test case fiat, i don't think policy's gonna change that.

- straight policy: i've probably had the least experience in straight policy v policy rds, but if you make your link scenario clear i'll be able to follow! like i said, i haven't been doing topic prep or anything on antitrust so try to make any obscure acronyms clear for me too. policy debate for me comes down to a question of who can best control the scenario even when accounting for the possibility of the other side's links -- the more engagement and the more explicit comparison b/w your offense and your opponent's, the better. the worst thing in the world is two teams independently describing their own scenarios - big picture framing will take you far b/c i really don't want to be stuck with like, 4 different extinction scenarios and no way to delineate between them. win the probability of your scenario, win weighing on your impact, we are all happy.

funky cps are a go for me! theory is a go for me! (good theory is underrated in policy, but it's gotta be good).

- ks: go for it. always happy to hear a good methods throwdown, always happy to learn more ab the lit. innovative advocacies/alternatives are amazing and i love to hear them, but good k debate shouldn't have to rely on my preexisting knowledge of any body of literature. besides that, though, debate's your sandbox. vague advocacies have a very uphill battle in front of me, you should have a ready-to-go, instant, rehearsed, and clearly defined answer to "what does the world of the aff/alt look like and what exactly do we have to do to get there". not to say the alt can't be something like unintelligibility, but like... you should know what you're defending.

reading a k also doesn't mean you can't be techy. don't rely on me to make connections to the line by line and apply offense for you. yes this is about your 6 minute long 2nc k overview.

- fw v ks: i'm leaning more towards the procedural fairness is an internal link not a voter camp, but you can always convince me otherwise. fw and cap is no reason to not even bother attempting to answer the aff - you're 100% capable of generating analytics on the fly. i will be INCREDIBLY UNIMPRESSED with teams who read fw without even attempting to engage the aff in good faith. the more fw claims contextualize in round abuse the better they are. tvas are great tools and the more creative you can be with them the better. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

- ks v fw: no need to be resolutional at all but i think it's better if there's an attempt to be topical [i.e. somehow related to the topic area]. if you draw a link from the general area of the topic, that's ideal. if the aff is just, totally unrelated to alliances at all i'll have a lower threshold for voting on fw. general impact turns to their form either a) need to have the scope of their implication clarified or b) need interactions with specific offense from the shell clarified. i find that clash debates are very hard to win without some clearly defined counter interp ready. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

i can handle speed but slow down for online debate. feel free to ask me questions after the round, but the rfd is not your 3nr/3ar. if i cannot adequately explain an argument myself in the rfd, i will not vote on it and i have no problems w making that clear even if it's not satisfying for you or gives you closure. i'll do my best to put rfds on tabroom as well!

----------------------------

LD PARADIGM:

main paradigm/right b4 rd: i've judged nearly every style of debate within ld, so odds are i'll be okay with whatever you read. i'm less confident with dense phil debate and blippy theory debates (but really, what kind of judge isn't less confident with blippy theory...) and more read-up on k literature. i don't care if you don't defend the resolution, but i have reliably gone both ways on t-framework. i'm not coaching, so i'm unfamiliar with the topic - if you're going for more LARPy positions, please overallocate explanation on link-level arguments! also in general slow down bc a) i'm out of practice listening to spreading b) who knows how much latency verizon wants to put upon my humble network b/c they thrive in my suffering and know i'll be back on the 29th of each month to pay my internet bill regardless

lately i've found that i have a pretty high threshold of explanation for arguments, especially on theory, so please keep that in mind. my usual threshold when making decisions is "can i thoroughly reexplain your argument in the rfd and draw lines throughout the flow" -- if the answer is no, i won't count it in my decision. the larger the implication of an argument is, the higher the threshold for explanation is. you can still win off things like independent voters, but there must be some coherent warrant and impact (and honestly, warrant for why something is an independent voter/outweighs everything else in the first place, because that's also never there)

if something happens in a round that makes you feel unsafe and you don't feel comfortable expressing it out loud, please send me a separate email during the round and i will intervene without naming you.

my background:

i debated for stuyvesant hs from 2012-2016, and then debated college policy at nyu ("graduated" in 2020). i'm no longer coaching anyone, so i guess that means i'm pretty out of the activity now? i already even deleted my paradigm and made a joke one, so now i have to rewrite all this. :( if it matters at all, in hs i read more policy-esque or soft-left positions, and in college i read a lot of far-left ks, theory args, and occasionally high theory. besides that, i've judged a lot, so i've honestly seen it all especially because nobody thinks reading paradigms is cool anymore. F

misc:

- being tab is impossible but i do strive for less intervention. usually what i do when i make decisions is construct two ballots in my head - one for the aff, one for the neg - and vote on whichever one is more logical/coherent and requires less work

- a general rule of thumb: if you think you are the only person in the pool (or even debate as a whole) to read your position, tech implications should probably be overexplained at the very least

- i'm willing to disclose speaks, but also sometimes willing to not do that (avg is usually a 28.5) -- this does not apply to policy

- starting to think that rounds that come down to 1ar theory are literally irresolvable. like, it's just impossible. i'll evaluate them as well as you can expect someone to evaluate latebreaking theory that an entire round somehow hinges on even though affs are time-pressed/blippy and negs only have one speech and less than 15 minutes are spent on the only thing that matters in the round yknow? i mean, don't get me wrong, i still think it's one of the most strategic options for the aff, so don't take this as a "don't read 1ar theory." all i'm saying is, life's a gamble!

- can everyone lay off me for constantly rotating my head 90 degrees during a debate round. my ear faces you so i hear better but now it's just a habit and/or eye contact makes me feel awkward :((((

- things i won't vote on: blatantly offensive stuff like racism good or the sorts, double win/loss (i physically cannot), "give me [x] speaks" arguments.

- are indexicals making a comeback? please do not read indexicals in front of me. like, please don't. i keep thinking 2020 can't get any worse and then lders bring back INDEXICALS. what the heck!!

- i can't really process layers of audio - it gives me a really, really bad headache and scrambles my brain. not saying you can't play music or other audio, just not simultaneously while you speak b/c i won't be able to write anything down

- please give me a heads up for explicit discussions of self-harm or su*cide -- you can still read it, i'd just like to know it's coming

anyways, thanks for readin! above all i hope you have fun while debating and remember why you joined this activity and why you stay. feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions ab this paradigm, or anything else!

Compete in APDA for Princeton.

Debated British Parliamentary for 5 years in the UK at high school.

---

Don't spread. If I can't flow something I won't credit it.

Don't find theory very persuasive.

Even if claims are commonplace and well-known, and I understand what you are trying to say, if you say the headline of the claim instead of explaining it fully I won't credit it very much.

Hey! I'm Kevin (he/him pronouns), I'm a fourth year LD debater for Lexington High School in Massachusetts.

I'm fine with pretty much all arguments as long as it isn't obviously racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. Read whatever you're comfortable with.

Extend and weigh! It makes the round much easier for me to resolve. Framework debate is also super important, but please don't have a values debate or debate framework when you and your opponent basically have the same frameworks.

I mostly assign speaker points based on in-round strategy rather than speaking manner and try to average a 28.5.

If your opponent is clearly newer to debate and you're purposefully making the round inaccessible (through spreading, theory, kritiks, aprioris, etc.) you'll get low speaks. If you don't know what those arguments are, don't worry about this.

Debate is a game, play it however you want and have fun!!

I have judged at the Princeton Classic twice before, both novice and varsity LD.

I competed in traditional LD throughout high school, competing in the NCFL Grand National Tournament in 2016. I want to emphasize that I did traditional LD, not circuit. Thus, I'll be focusing on the logical progression of your argument, the value clash, and how eloquently you can present your argument.

I want you to speak at a conversational rate (with some flexibility of course), use minimal jargon aside from the essentials, and generally keep the debate intelligible enough that an outsider could walk in and get the general gist. Let me make something perfectly clear: if you spread, I will dock points. Do it at your own peril.