Lakeland Westchester Classic 2020
2020 — Shrub Oak, NY/US
Novice LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi, I'm Gio, a junior at Duke University. I debated in LD for Harrison HS, got 13 career bids (3 bids my junior year and 10 my senior year) & won 5 bid tournaments (including the Glenbrooks). I mainly read Ks, but you should read arguments you're good at. Don't read a K if you don't know how to defend it.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Obvi, don't say anything racist, sexist or homophobic, etc. Also, don't spread against novices; you should be good enough to win on the flow without doing that.
I don't like tricks and most likely won't evaluate them.
Don't be late to round. Your speaks will be lowered if you are. Clear spreading and clever strategies are key for high speaks.
pomo/phil/tricks - 1/2
theory/k - 2/3
larp - 4
i like to think i evaluate rounds pretty technically. read whatever you want but i was mostly into poststructuralist/pomo stuff, existentialism, kant, tricks, etc. im most familiar with deleuze, baudrillard, nietzsche, and the like but that said ur gonna have to explain your arguments no matter what. i'll evaluate any argument that i understand unless theres a reason i can't.
please make it interesting thats my only request, obviously i'll judge every round to the best of my ability but i would much rather judge an interesting round and hear cool arguments. that usually doesn't mean "meme" arguments, but if you're good enough to win with a meme arg then by all means go for it.
I am a senior at Harrison High School with 1 year of debate experience, and 2 years of judging experience. I debated Junior Year. I will be attending Wesleyan University in the fall.
Spreading: If you're going to spread, please tell me prior to the round so we can start an email chain.
My email: email@example.com
Speaking Points: I will award high speaker points for speakers who do the following:
-Speak clearly and effectively
-Speak with inflection and tone (avoid monotone speeches)
-Be clear and to the point
I will decrease speaking points for speakers who:
-Sit during speeches and cross-ex (unless you're physically unable to)
-Yell (it's not necessary)
-Are disrespectful to their opponent or myself
-Are overly aggressive in Cross-Ex
-Bang their hands, slam the table, stomp their feet (it's really not necessary)
-Steal prep time
*Please avoid definition debate unless it is relevant. (Webster vs. Dictionary.com definition debate is not necessary and a complete waste of time)
Practices that I like:
-Extend all your cards, arguments and turn.
-If your opponent concedes an argument or doesn't respond to one of your arguments, say so.
-Give voting issues at the end of your speech- tell me why I should vote for you
-Don't make turns (etc) on arguments and not explain them
Framework: Explain why you're argument link back to your framework, and oppose your opponents
-Respond to framework debate. The framework is a huge component of your case, and I will often vote on who links back to the framework the best.
-If you agree with your opponents framework, explain why your arguments link better to that framework.
-Novices: I prefer that you don't read theory. If you do, I probably won't consider it in the round.
-Varsity: please don't read abusive theory. I will intervene clearly irrelevant theory.
Just don't. I won't evaluate and probably won't listen.
Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks
Please time/record yourselves and each other
I did four years of LD and qualified to the TOC twice. I taught at NSD Flagship '20, NSD Philly '20, and TDC '20. I have not judged since Yale 2021. This is my wiki from senior year.
I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.
Additional preferences: https://linktr.ee/sklein.debate
PF: I am looking for the most persuasive debater given the arguments on the flow. I taught PF for four weeks at the NYCUDL and am familiar with the format, but have no background on the current topic. I am fine with speed (I neither expect nor prefer it) but would like to have the speech doc if you spread.
hi! I'm Sonali (she/they)
Harrison High School '21, Cornell University '25
tl;dr pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks
Accommodations & Accessibility
accessibility is very important to me! please tell me & ur opponent any accommodations u may need before the round. it's a good idea to share these in writing in case there is an accessibility issue in round that u want to make an arg about, but expressing them verbally is also great. PLEASE slow and clear ur opponent as many times as u need. please disclose any content areas u don't feel comfortable discussing before round (to me & ur opponent) and give content warnings
also just in general, the nicer and more accommodating u are, the better speaks you'll get. that doesn't mean let ur opponent walk all over u, but it does mean try to genuinely answer their questions & be kind. I love sass but there is a difference between being sassy and being mean :/
I graduated 3 years ago and don't coach so tournaments are my only exposure to the topic (read: idk nuances of the topic). I'm fine w speed as long as you're clear (I will slow & clear you as much as I need - I have a processing disorder). also, record your speeches for online debate (also not a bad idea to record them for in-person tbh)
stolen from Rebecca Anderson's paradigm: please stop spreading against lay opponents. It does not make me want to vote for you. probably a low-point win at best so it is not in your best interest [edited for grammar]
- if u can't beat a lay opponent without spreading, u prob don't deserve to win
I pay attention to cx but don't flow it - very important for establishing links, violations, etc. I think if ur going to read any K or shell, you need to ask Qs in cx to solidify/get more links
I prob won't know the nuances of the topic so make sure to explain ur empirics and how ur theory of power functions in relation to the topic
I read mostly Ks and performance in high school so that's what I'm familiar with. I read a lot of disability (Sick Woman Theory, Spoon Theory), gender rights, and racial equity args
I don't care if ur topical or not
I love trad debate! this is my second favorite type of debate after K/Performance.
I guess I'm fine judging LARPy stuff. I do hate util & extinction scenarios but I'll vote on it if there is literally no other option (please don't make me vote on extinction). there are just so many good arguments against util & Singer was a eugenicist. LARP debates are some of the most uninspiring debates I've ever had and ur speaks prob won't be amazing if the round is j LARP
if I didn't learn anything about phil & high theory from four years of debate I promise you I will not learn about it from a 40-minute round. would not recommend reading phil & high theory in front of me. also, the majority of phil authors have expressly racist/sexist/homophobic views/their theories justify abuse of minorities, which I do not think belong in debate. I am very persuaded by reps Ks against phil authors.
the burden of proof is on u to explain ur theory to me I'm not gonna do research to understand u
don't read tricks & friv theory in front of me xoxo
I'm like 70% truth & 30% tech
- ur not gonna convince me the sky is green and I won't vote on it
- but following the structure of a T shell makes my life easier in terms of flowing and deciding
disclosure is prob good unless u have a good reason to not disclose. using the wiki is good unless u have a good reason not to use the wiki
I love framework debates (NOT T-FW)! I think it's weird when the neg debater reads a FW and then doesn't engage w the aff's FW in the NC. don't do this in front of me - ur better off j conceding to the aff's FW and spending more time on different args
I also think it's a major missed opportunity to not spend a good amount of time in ur rebuttals extending ur FW and explaining 1. why ur winning FW and 2. why ur opponent has no offense under ur FW. if ur opponent is winning four neg offs that don't link to ur FW and ur winning FW, idc about the neg offs. spend time on that in ur speeches for good speaks
Specifics on Theory:
I will always prefer issues that would normally read as theory to be read as a K (with a drop the debater implication/alternative) because I have always been better at flowing and understanding Ks better than theory. but I know this is unpopular so I won't hold this against u if u don't do this.
if u are reading theory, make sure to read paradigm issues (seems obvious but you'd be surprised). I generally think reasonability and RVIs good unless u tell me otherwise. I don't think fairness exists, and I don't think debate is a game. I'd prefer if u impacted the shell to accessibility (I think that is the most important thing in debate, with education as a close second). I guess I'd vote on fairness if both sides agree that fairness is the end goal of the shell tho
stolen from Hertzig's paradigm: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it). [edited for grammar]
a note on how I judge:
I always loved affirming when I debated. I love when aff debaters just go for the aff against a bunch of neg offs and use the args in the aff to take out the neg's offense. it shows that ur aff is really well written and thought-out and also shows that u know what ur case says and how to use it. if u can do this well, ur speaks will reflect how happy I am :)
ON THE OTHER SIDE don't do this if ur neg. there is no point in reading an NC and then using the same args u j read against the AC - it's a waste of time. diversify ur args
in conclusion pref me high if u read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if ur strat is theory & tricks
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 !
I'm a parent judge, but have been in the circuit for a while.
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com.
Traditional: It would be in your best interest to run your lay case.
Cps/plans. Simple advocacies and policy like args are good if explained slowly and clearly.
Ks are fine as long as they are topical and you don't spread. Not preferred though.
Phil: I'm familiar with common philosophers, and phil cases, if cogent, are OK.
Anything non topical: strike. I will not vote on non topical args. Sorry.
I appreciate clear voters in the final speech.
Generally I try to vote tech>truth, but sometimes I will pick up persuasive speeches and logic. Please don't read disclosure theory. Be polite in cross. Don't be too aggressive, it's a competitive activity but we're all here to have fun and learn.
I am generally not stingy with speaks, if you're kind to your opponent and present yourself well it will be reflected in your speaks.
Updates for Kentucky:
I have never used this online system so forgive me if I don't know what's going on with the technology.
If there's something wrong in terms of technology I'll be very lenient so don't worry about that.
If I'm judging you in LD, sorry in advance, I'm a PFer. With that being said, I just want to be entertained, so if you have the most fun running K's, theory, or tricks do so, I'll vote off anything if it's explained properly. If you take "I'll vote off anything" as me being clueless, you're probably right. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you but to have a good and clean debate.
Now into PF land (I'm a first-year out, 1 year of policy and 3 of PF in high school):
The crux of what I said above still holds true; I want to have fun and I want you to have fun too.
Some overarching things
- Please time everything yourself, I'll try to time everything, but sometimes I forget to press the button and am pretty lackadaisical on that front as a whole
- Don't speak to your partner during their speech or crossfire. They already have so much going on, another voice is just distracting and tends to produce worse results. Even if they're forgetting something important, I think it's better to let your partner be self-sufficient so they can learn for later debates.
- While eye contact is nice, don't bore holes into my skull. I'm probably too busy flowing or writing comments to notice anyways
Onto more speech by speech things
- Clear link stories and quantified impacts make me a happy camper.
- I enjoy unique arguments, but I know that it's harder writing up really obscure cases, so don't worry about running stock arguments.
- Speak clearly. I can handle any speed below legitimate spreading so don't worry too much about that. If I can't understand you, I'll audibly say something once. If you don't heed that, then it's on you.
-SIGNPOST! I can generally figure out where you are when you speak, but I don't want to have to do that work.
- As much as I find card dumping hilarious, I don't think it's particularly effective so please don't just string off a hundred cards in a row.
- I like there to be some weighing in Rebuttal, even if it is just 15 seconds at the end of the speech.
- Rebuttal is for Rebutting. If you are just reiterating your case for no purpose other than reiterating your case, kudos to you for using your time, but it's really not necessary. This is not to say don't defend your case in the second rebuttal, but if you're not actually engaging in with the arguments your opponents have put down I don't know what you're doing.
- Some people like to treat this as a second rebuttal, but it really should be boiling down the round to a few key issues.
- EXTEND YOUR OFFENSE! I don't know how you plan to win a round without offense, but if it's not mentioned in summary, I'm not letting it through to Final Focus.
- Don't give me a one-off sentence with just a claim. Try to do some explanation behind the argument.
- WEIGH! Just do it.
- OFFENSE! Tell me why you are winning the round. Make it easy for me to write the RFD in your favor.
Some other things:
(Copied from Aadharsh Pannirselvam)
In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game, and that novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third.
(Now my own words)
I love humor. Debate is stuffy enough as it is, making me laugh will reflect well on your speaker points. I love meme cases, but if you want to run one, make sure your opponents are on board, debate is still supposed to be an educational activity and I don't want to see one team being deprived of that educational experience.
I'm known to inflate speaker points. If you got below a 28.5 then something really didn't go well.
If you want to run policy-esque K's or other unorthodox arguments, then I'm probably your best judge to do that on. However, if you are running theory or a K, then again, I would want you to at least warn your opponents as to what you are planning to do. I will legitimately vote off of anything, but that being said, you need to clearly explain things no matter what argument you try to extend.
^Make of this what you will
Bonus speaks for accurate and sensical application of chi-squared analysis.
If both teams want me to simulate a non-flow judge for whatever reason I can do that.
I plead the fifth