I am a parent judge and vote based on VC and how well you defend any counter arguments. Clarity is better than speed. Please give me your voters in your final speech and weigh.

Hello, I recently graduated from Lexington high school - add me to the email chain: chickenwrap4@gmail.com

harvard update - opposite of Rishi’s paradigm.

The litmus test for judge intervention is obviously high. I doubt I’ll do it but in the instance of exclusionary slurs or blatant evidence ethics I won’t have a real problem.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth - everyone has personal conceptions of the quality of arguments but the decision a judge makes should reflect the debaters input and delivery of arguments rather than preconceived beliefs. If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc - my least favorite decisions include prioritizing new 2ar arguments or heavily leaned aff or neg because they believed they were on the “right” side of the issue.

LD:

I evaluate every round that lacks a theory or topicality argument through

1. What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize

2. Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

But obviously theory violations sideline my ability to evaluate such since they question the ethicality of engaging content in the first place.

Theory - I figured I'd put this first since it's considered one of the most judge dependent things. I'll vote on almost every theory violation, the almost exists as I wont vote on theory if it doesn't meet the standard of an "argument". A lot of people blip through incoherent statements that lack any form of development such as "vote aff cuz speech times favor an advantaged negative" this claim is terrible but even if the neg drops this it's not an argument as there's no explanation for why speech times favor the neg or how voting aff would solve such. However, if someone desires to pursue this incoherent argument they could say "a time pressed 1AR will inevitably get pummeled as it has to cover 7 minuets of content where the negative gets to develop any part of such - endlessly voting aff would force NDSA to change the structure of debate as it's functionally ending the activity" - that's an argument but a single blip answer from the neg will pretty much eliminate such. I will vote for any theory argument if it's substantiated in the original explanation not after it is "dropped".

Clarity and speed matter a lot in theory debates - often LD debaters can drop or lightly cover spikes when they are exempted or put inside large paragraphs because they're forced to flow when the aff can often be the combination of unclear and fast. While the aff may think this is a cheeky strategy absent immense clarity how does this prevent the judge from missing the argument as well. I'm not going to miss the argument on my original flow and look back and see it's in the middle of your 4th paragraph and expect the debater to catch it as well. This doesn't mean I'm against large walls of spikes but rather I only evaluate them when delivered coherently.

Theory arguments usually boil down to two main factors

1 - What impact does the affirmatives performance potentially cause relative to the benefits it potentially has

2 - How likely is it that the affirmatives performance causes or solves such problem in debate.

3 - If I should compare impacts or hold the affirmative to a standard where I let them pass if I believe they're reasonable.

What I mean by 1 - In a condo debate the aff can claim multiple conditional options skew 1AR strategy and the neg can claim it's absolutely necessary to ensure any educational value - however, as a judge adjuticating if the practice of conditionality is good I need to start with is preventing time skew more important than ensuring education. Winning this part of theory can lower the bar for how much of a link you need to win to your impact as you've already substantiated that it is much more important.

What I mean by 2 - In this very same condo debate even if the aff wins I should care about time skew way more than education if the negative proves it's very unlikely that conditional options uniquely skew the aff I should start to prioritize the negatives impact because it can be solved. However, this is all relative - how likely it is to be solved * how important is it to solve is the traditional frame used by an objective audience.

What I mean by 3 - This is the classic competing interpretations vs reasonability - without any debating I lean towards competing interpretations as it seems a bit arbitrary to randomly say I don't think the aff commited too much of a crime and leave it at that. However, if the aff sets up a persuasive argument for why anything but a model of reasonable doubt causes an endless proliferation of nonsense which is a) unfair or b) kills the value in debate I can be persuaded. Again, these often lose to arbitrariness or judge intervention claims in my experience.

Theory can also be an avenue for complete BS - I read robo spec, no prep, and grammarly spec as a debater for fun sometimes. However, I felt no sympathy going for these arguments as they're so trash if the aff can't generate responses of the top of their head they shouldn't win the round anyways. I'm the same as a judge I'm not going to strike a trash theory argument off the flow because it is utterly trash because it should be the aff's burden to disprove the utter trash.

This is the same for tricks, clarity and forming complete arguments are NECESSARY but otherwise it comes down to technical debating - I don't care how many you read if I can flow all of them.

CPs - this is pretty simple.

1 - Is the CP competitive

2 - Does the net benefit outweigh the risk of a solvency deficit

Some low level debates can justify competition by difference which never made any sense - it's the negatives burden to prove absolute exclusivity either based on text function or both. Usually for PICs this is pretty self explanatory.

Does the NB outweigh - for some reason some people think under the frame I've got to beat the CP then I've got to beat the DA. Usually there's no "beating" the CP or "DA" there's minimizing the risk (unless the debating from one side is absolutely terrible). One can lower the risk of the CP solving the aff and prove to me the case outweighs the DA but if I conclude the net benefit outweighs the risk that the CP doesn't solve I'm still forced to vote negative.

Judge kick - I'll presume towards it if no debating occurs.

DAs - this is a scenario where evidence matters a good amount to me, it seems kinda weird if people talk about the current state of politics or large economic factors based on arbitrary claims when the other team has cards supporting different from qualified specialists. However, this doesn't mean the neg should have a card that answers every aff argument but should be able to connect the dots between the thesis their authors support to disprove any rebuttal supported by the aff. For example, not having evidence to answer impact D in the 2NR usually doesn't matter a whole lot in LD if the original card you had in the 1NC was any good. However, if the 1NC has a barely highlighted impact card and the 1AR reads a bunch of reasons why warming doesn't cause extinction it's likely that the 2NR is going to need evidence to rebut such.

Phil - I don't have the most experience on smaller philosophies but I've gotten to understand things like Hobbes, Kant, Util, Forms of skepticism, and honestly most things read in LD. It's important for me to understand what your philosophy values in morality and how that connects to whatever the negatives philosophy is. For example, saying KANT=TRUE then Kant supports X is an argument but when the neg says X causes extinction or something it's on the aff to explain why such impact matters less than following a certain ethical criteria.

I am very low on TJFs most people have them, they make me cringe read them if you want but to me they're basically at the same standard of argument as you're a robot theory.

Ks - I spend a decent amount of time debating about whether I should evaluate the consequences of the plan against the alternative or some other framework based on education, reps, or any alternative metric. Oftentimes when the neg loses this debate their strategy starts to fall apart. However, some great Ks have backup plans built into their thesis. From my experience technical blocks resulted in a complete 1AR collapse - I don’t like it when the AFF just reiterates a generic defense of scenario planning and fails to connect it or answer the negative articulation of why such is bad.

If one does decide to go for a K against a Kaff make sure to

1 - Have a good defense of whatever your theory of how power/whatever you're questioning operates.

2 - Spend a lot of time proving exclusivity when it is hard to pin the affirmative to a specific method

3 - Explain why what the ALT solves is a lot more important than what the aff solves OR if it actually solves the case.

KAFFs - I used to read them a lot and logically I'm fine adjudicating these but I often hold the aff to a relatively high bar when answering framework. Having sweeping critiques of debate as a whole or the logic of "fairness" are bold claims but if the negative fails to dispute them it's fair game. In framework debates the neg should respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

My policy paradigm:

I evaluate every round simply through two frames absent a theoretical violation (theory or topicality)

1. What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize

2. Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth - everyone has personal conceptions of the quality of arguments but the decision a judge makes should reflect the debaters input and delivery of arguments rather than preconceived beliefs. If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc - my least favorite decisions include prioritizing new 2ar arguments or heavily leaned aff or neg because they believed they were on the “right” side of the issue.

New Trier is my first time judging the topic, but I’m decently informed on most affs, CPs, DAs, and Ks. My background in debate was almost entirely centered around Ks, T, and interesting kritikal versions of CPs and theoretical arguments. That being said I never had a strong ideological belief of the arguments I delivered but tried to perform it in the most technical venue to get the ballot, which is generally how I viewed most critical arguments. I don’t have any essentialist strong beliefs such as “Ks are bad” but I won’t let teams get away with minimal proof for broad sweeping claims about how the entirety of the world operates given decent aff contestation.

CPs - neg must prove opportunity cost with a net benefit Germaine to the plan outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit - against most CPs I prefer when the 2AR paints a consistent picture that connects deficits to certain 1AC Cards rather than blips that force the judge to infer, this also includes impacting out each solvency deficit.

T - I went for weird T arguments a lot such as “substantial” but also pretty decent T arguments for the majority of my junior year and some of my senior year. Most of the time I’m a big fan of precise definitions, anything else seems to be pretty arbitrary and makes any limits set unpredictable. However, I can be convinced that some definitions are so unbearable for the negative that research becomes closer and closer to impossibility. A large part of the time T debates bottle down to what impact matters the most as it’s hard to completely mitigate small theoretical impacts.

Ks - I spend a decent amount of time debating about whether I should evaluate the consequences of the plan against the alternative or some other framework based on education, reps, or any alternative metric. Oftentimes when the neg loses this debate their strategy starts to fall apart. However, some great Ks have backup plans built into their thesis. From my experience technical blocks resulted in a complete 1AR collapse - I don’t like it when the AFF just reiterates a generic defense of scenario planning and fails to connect it or answer the negative articulation of why such is bad.

Framework - respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

First Year Coach. No fast talking. No Spreading. Not progressive.

I am a third year parent judge. I have judged at a local and national level, mostly in Novice. I will flow and keep track of arguments and vote for the best arguments. I prefer a conversational speed and it is your responsibility to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If you are speaking too fast, I will ask you to slow down. I prefer quality over quantity.

I expect people to be respectful and I do not appreciate bully tactics during rounds. I consider constant interruptions to be rude. I love well-constructed arguments with well-supported evidence; I prefer to evaluate arguments based on the specific resolution and value/criterion.

I love judging. Have fun and be yourself!

Hey, I'm Will -3 years in Needham High VLD debate.

Y'all need to make sure to signpost, extend warrants and WEIGH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE WEIGH

Speaking loud and clear is a must for me and I will drop speaks if you are not loud enough

I don't care what you run as long as it is not racist or sexist (and if it is RIP the round)

Shhhh... don't tell the other judges but I like blip args (I will vote on them)!

Have a great tournament and try not to pull your hair out from stress! :)

__̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ Ì¡ÍŒlÌ¡Ì¡Ì¡ Ì¡ÍŒlÌ¡*Ì¡Ì¡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ Ì¡Ì¡Í¡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|Ì¡Ì¡Ì¡ Ì¡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ Ì¡ÍŒlÌ¡Ì¡Ì¡Ì¡.___

I am a parent Judge and have been judging LD for the past three years .I have judged local and national tournaments.

Please go slow and explain your arguments well, so I can flow the round.

Please do not be racist or discriminatory and do not say anything that could offend anyone. Please warrant your arguments, and read lay arguments because I will not understand spreading.

I don't mind if you go fast but will ask you to slow down if needed.

Structure and Quality is what I usually look for.

Respect is very important and I will appreciate all rounds to be amicable.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it ...".

Above all I enjoy a good Debate!!

Hi, im a current senior at Lexington High School. Have fun, be nice, read what you want.

21erives2@lexingtonma.org

Hello everyone, I am a traditional judge. DO NOT spread. Do not even read fast! Don’t use any jargon. Make sure you make clear persuasive arguments, quality over quantity. Keep it simple, so no Ks and avoid complex counterplans.

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 debated LD at Lexington High School for 4 years and graduated in 2015. I don't have specific preferences on what kinds of cases you read, so you should feel free to run what you are most comfortable with. I will go by what I have written on my flow. That being said, I have also been out of the activity since 2015, and only have judged at a few local tournaments since then. As a result, I am now only about to understand around 25-50% speed. I will tell you to be clear or to slow down, however, if it becomes a problem in round. My other weakness is in theory and tricks. If you read a case with a million tricks embedded in it, don't expect me to catch the nuances of it. I also have a pretty high threshold on theory. Of course, run it if there is real abuse going on in round, but I'd rather not vote on frivolous shells. Other than that, go for whatever arguments you want, whether that be Ks, policy style arguments, etc. Also, by your last speech, give me good voters so that there should be no question why I should vote for you.

If you have any specific questions, don't hesitate to ask me before the round!

Hi I am a second year parent judge. I prefer a understandable and normal pace when you read your case. I am not too fimilar with a lot of fancy terms so keep that in mind with the type of case you read and how you rebuttal. As for speaker points, remain clear and understandable and you should get fairly high speaks of me.

I am a parent judge who never competed in Speech or Debate. I fell into the world of Speech & Debate when my oldest decided to compete in LD as a freshman in 2019.
while I can keep up with fast talking I can not flow spreading. I do not flow off a shared case. My job as a judge is to listen to you speak your points and convince me your way is the better way. I vote off who is most convincing and impactful. I also don’t take arguments at face value. Arguments should be based in logic.

Stay respectful of each other and understand everyone is arguing a side they may not agree with.

Policy

larrylin57@gmail.com : y'all should add this

past Lexington policy debater and 2N by heart

Be sure to time yourselves, kinda have a bad record of recording every bit of prep and whatever.

I hate theory. I also vaguely dislike process CPs because BORING. Politics DAs can be quite cool. Federalism is a meh. States is a meh. Interesting well explained Ks and K affs are cool. Agamben and cap do not fulfill such requirements. T can be cool.

Anyhow,

things I've run:

- federalism

- t classrooms

- families aff

- Zong

- Trickster Hermeneutics

- IRS DA

- Shutdown DA

- Baudrillard

- Baudrillard K affs

- Framework

- FARM BILL

- Parole CP

- States CP

- T LPR

- Presumption against K affs

- Midterms

- 2020

- Infrastructure

- Citizenship CP

- Cap

- psycho set col

- land based set col

- psycho

- storytelling

- turtle island CP

- 3 tier

- Schlag

- Time

- ASPEC

- T enact

Applies to all:

Debate is pretty cool. It has some characteristics that make it unique. It's a competitive game, it's like a sport in that respect. It's a speech game, it's where two teams of two perform in front of each other and in front of the judge. It's not just speech either, it's an interactive experience between two teams where one teams performance uniquely changes the performance and content of the next team's speech. Debate is also the ground to advocate for what YOU care about, or perhaps explore some arguments on the other side of the library you haven't debated before.

Debate's what you make of it.

GLHF, lmk if you have questions.

also lol im in pacific time so morning rounds are real rough.

PF:

1) have an email chain or otherwise send evidence in some manner, my email is : larrylin57@gmail.com

2) speak with confidence but not arrogance, I'm sentient, not stupid (probably)

3) do clear line by line so it's easy for me to track arguments throughout the debate

4) be respectful of people, no isms here. also be polite and not rude

5) summary and FF, tell me a story. have some flair, have some fun, and have a coherent story.

6) keep weird math and fudging evidence to a minimum. I guess if I don't catch you it's fine? But if I do I won't be pleased.

7) some of these tournaments and topics can get very . . . stale. if you can intrigue me with your arguments while still debating well, I will be very happy.

8) glhf! lmk if you have any questions. I'd be happy to answer them!

9) I've found on several occasions that teams don't really have much offense in their FFs. This seems odd. Have offense in your FF and probably frontload it.

:)

Update: Jan. 18, 2020

I’m a teacher from Toms River, NJ who teaches US1 and US2 Honors. I’ve been coached PF/LD Debate and extemp at Ridge HS for the last 9 years, but it's been probably two years since I've found myself in an LD pool. Please read this paradigm before the round for the best picture of what I’m like as a judge. This is far more detailed than the readers-digest version that I’ll give orally before the round if requested.

LD

It's been a while since I've been in an LD judging pool. Needless to say, I'm out of practice.

Speed: Start out at a reasonable pace. I need to hear your voice and your cadence for a few seconds before the spreading starts. I'll call clear two or three times before I give up flowing. If you're reading a plan text/interp/role of the ballot, don't spread it. I want to hear all of it. If you're reading theory in front of me, good luck. I'll need you to go slow and hold my hand through it.

Argumentation: I'm most familiar with policy args and kritiks. That said, I'm open to whatever you want to put in front of me.

Theory should only be read in the case of actual in-round abuse. Theory for the sake of theory isn't fun for me to listen to. If you're going to run theory, you should read it at a slightly faster than conversational pace. I'm not familiar with the arguments, and often a lot of it goes over my head. I need the abuse story to be clear and concise to the point where I can explain it start-to-finish in an RFD. The more accessible a theory argument is, the easier a time I'll have evaluating it.

I have a super low threshold on responses on spikes at the end of a constructive. I tend to ignore arguments like time skew, if I'm being honest.

Don't feel like you have to go for every argument in the round. Be strategic in the issues you select. You're constructing a ballot story for me and if all I have are blippy arguments to vote on, I (and probably you) will not be particularly happy with the decision rendered. I prefer seeing thoughtful debate with depth on one or two issues in the round rather blippy, surface level arguments about everything.

Warrants are important, logical and otherwise. "That isn't true" isn't an argument...you need to tell me why something isn't true.

Ad Hominem attacks against a debater are unacceptable. I'm not going to vote for a debater who calls their opponent racist, sexist, ableist, etc without any justification.

Racist, sexist, abelist, etc. arguments are a no-go for me. Run at your own risk.

Speaker Points: I'll follow whatever standard the tournament sets. You'll probably notice that I'm a bit stingier with speaker points than other judges. That's not to say that I've never given a 30 before, but it's not a particularly frequent occasion.

Evidence: The evidence standard in LD (in my experience) is remarkably higher than it has been in PF rounds that I've judged...that said, I still feel the need to say it...Academic integrity is extremely important. Please be honest. Don't alter a card's meaning, don't intentionally misrepresent evidence. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent.

_______

PF

Speed/Speaking: I enjoy fast/circuit style debate. However, I will not flow if you spread. Spreading has no place in PF. I consistently reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they are talking about. When I evaluate a speaker I take into account a number of things: strategic decisions, coverage, efficiency, speaking style, persuasiveness, etc.

Points: 0-25 (or whatever the lowest base the tournament allows to give) are reserved for those who are offensive (more on that later). 25.5-26 is a debater who has a lot to work on, has serious flaws in arguments, couldn’t fill speech times, and most likely will not make it to elims. 26.5-27.5 is an average debater. May make it to elims, but still has noticible flaws in arg construction, lines of logic, and is not a great speaker. 28-29 will most likely break. Lines of logic are mostly solid and I was probably impressed by the case. Args may have flaws but they are minor. 30 is the ideal debater. Flawless argumentation, a stellar and strategic speaker.

Things that will lose you speaks: The thing I most frequently award 25 speaks for is for not citing evidence correctly. A few examples of this are additions or omissions of words (even the omission of a word like “might”), straw man arguments, literally making things up. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent. Debate is an academic activity. As such, academic integrity is important to me. If you feel that you cannot debate in front of me without unethically interpreting evidence, please strike me.

While it may not earn you a 25 outright, talking during your opponents speeches is extremely rude. Your opponents speeches are not prep time for you. If you need to communicate with your partner, write or type a note. Every time a debater decides to speak during their opponents speech, I’ll subtract a half point from them.

During CX, please treat your opponent with respect. I understand CX gets heated sometimes but yelling over your opponent, being condescending, etc won’t win you points with me.

Framework: Please have one at the top of the constructive. It’s difficult to debate literally every aspect of a resolution without some reasonable restrictions to ground or without telling me how I should evaluate the round. I’m not sure why this has become a trend, but debaters have started framing debates/running observations in their rebuttals (not overviews, full blown frameworks). If a framework turns up anywhere but the beginning of the constructive, I won’t flow it. I don’t think framing the debate in the rebuttal (the second rebuttal especially) is particularly fair.

Weighing: Please weigh especially if you’re working with two different metrics (money and lives for example). If you don’t weigh, I have to do the weighing myself and I prefer not to.

Rebuttals: I understand the value of the line by line. What I dislike are massive card dumps with 8 responses against each subpoint. I reward debaters who can make sound logical arguments (with a source or two where appropriate) to dismantle a contention. Please warrant all responses. Warrants can be logical or source based. I don’t want to hear “my opponent is wrong.” Or “this contention doesn’t make sense”...tell me WHY your argument is true. (This should be self explanatory, but I’ve written too many ballots that say the words “no warrant/please warrant your response).

The Summary: There isn’t no enough time to cover a line by line in a summary. Give me logical responses (sources if you have to) to arguments and crystallize the debate. Set up the voting issues.

Final Focus: Don’t run new arguments in the Final Focus.

Id be happy to answer any other questions you have before the start of the round.

Hello! My name is Matt Murno.

In order to win here are some things you should do:

Things you should do:

1. I feel like weighing has been decreasing a lot throughout the years, so if you are in front of me you should have clear weighing at the end of your speech and link to the winning FW.

2. It’s been a while since I have heard spreading, so I would prefer more conversational speed, but nothing much faster than that.

3. Voters are huge for me, I want clear numbered voters linked to the FW.

Things you should NOT do:

1. Don’t spread, I won’t be able to understand you.

2. Don’t be too techy, I’m truth>tech, so if an arg is definitely false I won’t vote on it even if it was dropped (I.e. racism doesn’t exist)

3.Don’t read args like racism, sexism, etc good.

4.Be respectful to your opponent.

5.Don’t read theory or K’s, you can make those kinds of arguments, like an AFF about something K-ish like feminism or racism but not something super complicated. For theory, don’t read a shell, I might consider paragraph theory if it is reasonable and not frivolous and VERY CLEAR what I’m voting on and why.

I am a parent judge. I debated for 4 years in high school, policy format, but that is a long time ago. I will flow your arguments and pay attention to what gets addressed and what gets dropped, within reason. Spreading is OK but I don't esteem it; just having said something is not the same as having made the case for it. Clarity of speech and argument are important, as is evidence from authorities to back up your claims. Tell me what is important and why. Where you can, define the principles/decision rules upon which I should base my vote. Remember that you are "selling" your case primarily to me, which means eye contact. I will penalize any disrespect to your opponents.

Add me to the email chain: josephineobrien922@gmail.com

Note for Glenbrooks

Hi LDers! I will be judging you. That being said, I have only ever debated in PF and I am a PF judge. That means that I cannot judge advanced theory or spreading. If you don't read my paradigm and run a progressive argument and leave me sitting there attempting to flow and wondering what the heck is going on, that's on you! That being said, I've always loved LD and I'm excited to judge y'all. Most everything else in my paradigm still applies to you, so read through it.

Background:

Hi! I'm Josephine (she/her/hers). I debated for four years for Hunter and graduated in 2021 — I'm taking a gap year before I start college at Columbia University with a dual BA at Sciences Po. I was my team's captain as a senior and, although I took a step back from debating due to virtual tournaments/college apps, I'm familiar with current circuit norms and argumentation. You can treat me as a flow judge, but that doesn't mean that you should tell me to "just extend" an argument or spread.

tldr:

You can win my ballot with the two Ws: Warranting and Weighing. Be nice.

General Guidance:

• Please signpost and weigh. I'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. If you want my ballot, weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more!

• I'm okay with moderate speed. If I can’t make out what you are saying I’ll say “clear” twice.

• I am tech over truth, but if you are racist/sexist/etc i will drop you with low speaks. That also means that you NEED to use content warnings if you're discussing a sensitive topic. And, this should go without saying, but respect pronouns.

• Speaks start at a 28 and go up/down from there.

• Please, please, please warrant — tell me WHY what you're saying is true, even if so-and-so from the Brooking Institute says it's true!

• Don't be mean in cross — that doesn't make it a fun round for anyone.

• PF: Write my ballot for me in the final focus! everything in FF should be in summary. All offense for me to vote needs to be in the second half of the round.

• You need to extend a clear link chain with warrants and impacts if you want me to vote on it. You would be surprised how many teams neglect to do this.

• If you want me to vote on a turn, it needs to be given the same care and attention as case offense. What that means: your links need to be extended, you need a clear and warranted impact, and you need to weigh that impact. I will not vote on a turn that is nebulous or not implicated. That being said, I have nothing against voting off a turn (I personally loved running turns) — just run it well.

• I will raise my hand once you're at time and stop flowing after a ~5 second buffer

• I love cool and innovative strategies — run them in front of me!

• I’m fine with theory if it checks back for actual abuse BUT I am not too familiar with progressive arguments (I personally never ran them). Therefore, if you’re trying something progressive, run it in paragraph form, don’t spread, and explain it clearly.

• LD: if neither side has offense at the end of the round i will presume neg, but please don't make me presume anything (please extend!). PF: I'll presume first-speaking team.

• Wear whatever makes you comfy.

• Try to make me laugh! I show all my emotions on my face so you will know if you say something funny.

Zoë Kaufmann legit taught me everything I know about debate so if you want to learn more about my philosophy, you can check out her paradigm here. You can assume that anything in it also goes for me.

Have fun! And if you ever want to chat about debate or life, feel free to reach out via email, Facebook Messenger, or Instagram (@j0sephinefrancis). I know as well as anyone that debate can be stressful and scary but I am here for you and so proud of all of you! Instead of spending your last few minutes before your round stress-prepping, watch this!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwcJsBYL3o

Hi all! :) I am Michelle and I have debated for Acton-Boxborough for the past 3 years.

I am a flow judge, and I will evaluate the rounds on the flows so please make sure to clash with your opponent and weigh your arguments under your framework. Please do not just say "I extend", please give voters on why this argument is important so I can evaluate the round on it.

I'm okay with tech debates.

Most of all, make sure to have a fun and educational time!

Hi,

I am a lay Parent Judge. I have judged couple of local and National LD tournaments. I prefer debaters not to spread. Please speak clear. I won't be able to judge or follow on any technical aspects like theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. Please use your lay cases.

Please be respectful.

thank you!

Veena Patil

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.

I am a former high school and college debater (Wellington HS - FL (LD), and Northwestern (NDT)). But that was all long time ago... I am now a parent paying back some serious karma for all the tournaments my parents judged.

I don’t mind speed just speak clearly.

Have logical, well constructed arguments. Using jargon for the sake of sounding like a debater is a great way to have me lose interest. Quickly.

Respond to opponents arguments in rebuttals - don’t restate your argument.

Crystallization and Ballparking are very, very worth while. Extra credit for doing it correctly.

I have no set preferences on what you can run or do. If you are able to support it, I am willing to judge it.

Be civil. Have fun.

Hi, I'm Sasha (she/her)! Currently a senior at Needham HS in Massachusetts; did LD for the first two years of high school before switching over to speech; now I do extemp.

Update for Penn 2021!: I haven't competed in LD since May 2019 and haven't judged since January 2020, so I'm a bit rusty! I've only judged speech online so it might take me a second to get set up on campus and my only understanding of the JanFeb topic is that it has something to do with killer robots(?? shoutout to the wording committee for that). I will really really really appreciate (read: probs boost speaks for) anyone who makes sure they speak clearly and does the whole ~write my ballot for me~ cliché <3

If you're reading this then I'm probably judging you in NLD so here are a few general things to keep in mind:

-Let me know what your preferred pronouns are before round!

-Racist/sexist/classist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/etc behavior will not be tolerated! Also, debate can be super stressful and toxic at times, so please just try to be nice and use common sense.

-Please do not try to spread. It's a Sunday morning. You're NLDers. This is neither the time nor the place for that, and I feel like it will probably take away from the whole learning aspect of NLD for at least your opponent, if not both of you.

-I'm really skeptical of running Ks or Theory in novice LD since a lot of schools restrict their novice programs from those arguments (long-winded way of saying CPs and disads are fine, just don't run the more advanced stuff if I'm judging your NLD round! I also haven't been around LD in over a year so I wouldn't trust me to make a fair decision on those either!).

-I expect you to keep your own time but I'm also usually pretty good about having a timer up as well.

-If you have any questions about your RFD since I know I'm not the more coherent judge when it comes to delivering those, feel free to reach out! My email is sasharieser@gmail.com

Some more debate-y things to note:

-Give a quick off time roadmap and signpost throughout your speech.

-Utilize CX!!! This was probably one of my favorite parts of LD when I did it and I think you gain a TON of important skills in it.

-Actually extend arguments with warrants and impacts, not just tags.

-When it comes to framework, I want you to explicitly tell me your value criterion and warrant why I should be using your framework when making my decision. Definitely collapse under your opponent's framework if you need to; I won't hold that against you and that can definitely be strategic. That being said, values debates are essentially useless to me and I will probably shed a tear if I have to listen to the morality vs justice thing. They're the same thing. These aren't just a waste of my time but also a waste of your (limited!) speaking time.

-Weigh! For the love of god, please weigh. This is basically how I'm going to be voting if you forget to crystalize/give me voters/whatever the jargon for writing my ballot for me is.

-Give me voters! I don't want to have to fill in the gaps by myself and make my decision based on intervention. Tell me exactly why I'm voting aff/neg and what my RFD should look like at the end of your 2nr/2ar.

-Project speak clearly, and be persuasive!!! super underrated skill at local/novice debate tournaments and good speaking will improve your speaks (shocking). Being funny will also boost your speaks but please don't try to be funny if you're not.

-I'm cool with you asking a question during prep time or asking to see your opponent's case, just remember that all counts for your prep time.

Other than that: have fun, learn, and good luck :)

Hi! I'm Iris, I've debated at Acton-Boxborough for 4 years.

Since I have debated for a while, I'm okay with any type of argument you want to run, as long as it's fair to your opponent—so please limit progressive arguments in the novice division! I will evaluate the debate off of whatever I flow, so please weigh and clash with your opponent. Please make it clear what your voters are, especially in the last speech.

Hello everyone! I am Aileen Song, a parent judge. I'm very excited to judge your debate today. Please make very logical points and speak clearly and loudly. I value effective communication and concise reasoning.

I am very excited to hear your debates!

Aileen Song

Lexington High School 2020

Barnard College 2024

PF:

- I'm flow

- I debated pf a few times so I'm familiar with how it works but not enough to remember timings and that stuff

- definitely agree with Elijah Smith on this:

-- The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

-- You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

- All of that's to say that I want people to be strategic and collapse to an argument and also be efficient about asking for evidence.

LD:

- i debated ld in high school, have occasionally judged since

- i dont know the topic so explain acronyms

- I like k's and larp

Hi! I'm Amanda (she/her) , I'm in my 4th year of Speech and Debate at Acton-Boxborough.

I only debated lay so thats what I'm most familiar with. But I'm okay with most arguments, as long as it's fair to your opponent, and you know how to run it well. Please do not run K's or theory because you guys probably don't know how to and no one can follow terrible rounds and I will not be happy if you guys are not making any sense. Also, no racist or sexist args!

I will evaluate the round based on my flow, so please weigh and clash with your opponent. Please have fw debate (but please don't have value or fw debate when you and your opponent's fw is the same)! I would appreciate a good fw debate and weighing under the winning fw. PLEASE WEIGH. Please. Also give a quick off-time roadmap and signpost throughout your speech.

Please speak loud and clearly! Afterall, speaking skills are very important anywhere you go, and I will appreciate your clarity by giving you high speaks!

Voters are always helpful! If you want to make my job very easily for me, this is one way to do that.

Lastly, have fun and learn from each other!

Contact: 20zavaliagkos2@lexingtonma.org - for questions and email chains

I'll vote on anything just don't be rude.