Lakeland Westchester Classic 2020
2020 — Shrub Oak, NY/US
Novice/JV Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Lexington HS '20 (Policy debate)
UC Berkeley '24
Tl;dr: Tech > Truth. Line by line is always good. If you don't explain why you win the debate or weigh your arguments against your opponents, then I may have to do some of that work for you and that's not fun for anyone.
For Policy: During my time in high school, I went from being a 2N who went for politics DAs and process CPs to being a 2A who ran a planless aff so I like to think I'm pretty middle of the road.
For LD: Most of what I have below should apply but keep in mind that I'm not very familiar with all of the theory and tricks arguments that are exclusive to LD.
For PF: Speak confidently, be organized, show your research, and clash with your opponent. Most of my PF experience comes from coaching and you should expect me to be more on the "evaluating arguments over speaking style" side than other judges.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
- Make sure your aff's internal links make sense. A lot of affs get torn apart due to low-quality i/l evidence.
- Good case debate is underrated and can be the difference between a win and a loss if you minimize the aff's offense. 1NCs that recut the 1AC are powerful.
- I love politics DAs but if you have a good topic-specific DA on this topic, I'll be impressed because that's hard these days. I like it when people put emphasis on the outweighs/turns debate but in my experience, the link and internal link are the weakest parts of the DA so that's what both teams should focus on.
- I don’t think any CPs are cheating unless the aff wins that they are on the flow. If you have a blippy one line arg on theory, it's an uphill battle to win it since you're kind of destroying its purpose. For what it's worth, I think neg ground has gotten progressively worse every year. Perm shields the link arguments are severely underrated.
- I like generic CPs that are argued well with clear reasoning and aff specific CPs that are well thought out with good evidence. Judge kick isn't a default unless the aff drops it after the 2NR brings it up.
- I don’t care what the T violation is, as long as you win it. T is about what you justify and want for the best model of debate. I also don't care about in-round abuse.
- It looks so bad when people read Ks without knowing what they're talking about and it becomes really obvious in CX.
- I am most familiar with literature bases about anti-blackness, settlerism, capitalism, gender, security, and biopower but I'm fine with anything.
- I like a good alt explanation but I'm not one of those people who thinks that an alt needs to resolve everything- I'm even okay if you kick the alt as long as you can explain how you get offense off of the links or framework.
- K v K debates tend to come down to who explains their method and theory of power better. My favorite ones will actually find problematic aspects in each others' scholarship.
- I understand the point of long overviews but if you drop the line by line, you're letting the aff get away with murder.
- I like FW debates and believe they should be about which model of debate does the most good.
- The best FW 2NCs have shorter overviews and do most of the impact/TVA work on the line by line.
- I think affs should be tied to the resolution in some way but what that means is debatable. If your aff interacts with the debate space more than the resolution, I'll still vote for you if you explain why the ballot is key.
- Debate about how to approach the resolution but please follow speech times and don't ask for 30s.
I’ll start at 28.0 and move up and down. I usually only break 29 when I judge people who I think should make it to elims.
I will lower speaks if:
- You’re sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Debate should be civil.
- You read an aff with trauma impacts that goes into very graphic detail (there's usually one about gender violence or human trafficking every year) and don't give a trigger warning to make sure your opponents are okay with it.
- You say warming is good/doesn't exist. I think that's bad scholarship.
- You're unclear.
I won’t be mad if:
- You ask questions/postround- it's important for learning as long as you're being genuine.
- You use flex prep AKA ask CX questions during your prep.
If there is an email chain please add me to it and please include analytics. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated at Mamaroneck High School as a 1A/2N. I also debated at Wayne state university for a semester (fall of 2018).
Debate is and should continue to be a welcoming space for all involved in the activity. I will vote on any argument, just make sure to be clear and sum up the arguments in the rebuttals.
Take the obligation to be polite seriously, because not doing so will affect your speaks.
FOR NOVICES: PLEASE FLOW!!!
Most importantly have fun!
email me if you have any questions.
Due to a recent trend of far-right commentators publishing random sentences from paradigms and attacking college students on national television, I'm deleting mine.
Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)
I debated 3 years at Baltimore City College High School. The first year of my high school career I did mainly Policy Debate. The last two years of my Debate career I delved into the Kritik on both sides of the Debate. The majority of my arguments were mostly race theory and arguments about antiblackness.
I mostly debated the k and I love kritiks. I think that a kritical perspective is important for opening the activity to more marginalized experiences. I believe that it can be productive both for the sport and for the community.
Despite my love for Kritiks and Race arguments, I will admit that I am less biased than most with my orientation. When I watch and Judge debate, I will do my best to listen carefully to the actual arguments being made and will vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be about even competition that is based on what is said in round and how it effects the outside world. In terms of argumentation I believe in truth and tech almost equally, with truth just weighing slightly higher on the scale. This means that a conceded argument is true, but within context of reason. I do value the flow; and it still has a major impact on my decision.
I am fine with spreading; just be clear and slow on tags.
For K teams
For K teams, explain arguments and links. If I do not understand why things are the way they are or even how the Alternative solves for things. then I will have more trouble voting you up. Do yourself a favor and impact and explain each claim you make. For those reading Kritiks I believe a genuine belief and representation of the arguments your talking about is important. Also, if your an all white team that reads a race k against poc I will likely not vote on it unless it has a legit (and I mean hardcore legit) link. That being said in any situation, I will try my best to be open minded.
Policy v Ks/plans with critical advantages
For Policy Teams that are on the Aff and are going against such arguments; do not break out k-ish advantages for a super policy Aff. You should just read what you want and the do the neccessary level of argumentation to win against such arguments. If you naturally read policy affs that have a k twist; then that is fine.
In order for me to vote on Topicality; it really needs to be impacted out. There should probably be more to the Standards part of the Debate other than education and Fairness. (Recently that has been the only extension of T that I have heard in debates that I have judged.) If it is education and Fairness you need to answer the questions of "why is the model of debate that you are advocating for producing important? Other questions such as, "what is the type of education you are producing/why is that good?" What is fairness and why does that matter in this Debate especially against the opponents Impacts. These are the the types of questions that need to be answered in addition to answering the other teams arguments in order to get my ballot. Answering these questions are probably not strictly regulated to folks who run T/FW...., but I have found that the explanations to these questions have been severely lacking in the majority of rounds that I've judged with teams who have brought up this argument. This is why I put this explanation here. I will admit; I am more open than I used to be, but I still do not believe that you were forced to run T. However, I will vote on it if the necessary work is done. In terms of articulation I would be interested in hearing a critical spin on Framework argument that talks about why the State focus may be good politically for (whater K is being talked about.) I am good on theory, so if you run it I'm cool. I'm more geared towards social political justice arguments, but whatever.
currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh
formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC. McDonogh won the TOC in 2007. I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.
I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.
I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.
True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again
Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.
It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.
Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.
Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.
Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.
Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.
Debate Round Non-negotiables:
-time yourselves for prep and speeches
-your prep still runs even when sending email chain/sharing evidence
-face judge and stand while speaking (spreading is okay just be sure to hit clear tag lines)
-Roadmaps and signposts
-No swearing unless purposeful to the case presented
Case Debates: Really enjoy good case debates. Smart analytics and close reading of aff evidence can get the neg far.
Aff: MUST read your solvency in the 1AC. Fine with K Aff's.
Neg team: Make sure your speeches are organized that paints a clear picture of how you're proving that the SQUO is better. Blended case filled with T, DA's, CP's or K's. You will not win with a sole impact of extinction. It doesn't convince me...ever.
CX: Can be open.
Rebuttals: Must include clear impact calc.
Lexington '21, Sarah Lawrence '25, she/her, yes I want to be on the email email@example.com
title the email chain something along the lines of Tournament---round x---aff team (aff) vs neg team (neg)
I debated for four years at Lexington and debated at Michigan last year before transferring. I have always been a 2a.
*online debate: please try to keep your camera on if at all possible
I think that these are great. I would prefer if there is some form of a solvency advocate but what that looks like is up for debate. Smart perms are preferable to theory debates on a process cp. Links should be a sliding scale and proving the cp links less than the aff should be sufficient. I probably default to judge kick but it doesn't take much to convince me not to.
I think that conditionality is probably good but again this is open to debate. I think new 2nc cps are probably abusive unless in response to new 2ac offense. I think cp's should be functionally and textually intrinsic which means making perms to test either textual or functional competition (functionally competitive but textually intrinsic perms or vice-versa are great). Object fiat, private actor fiat or lopez cps are probably not theoretically legitimate. Otherwise, almost all other theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and winning them, especially if they aren't going for the cp, will be an uphill battle.
I really love these, I think I give pretty much every 1nr on a da, mostly politics. I would prefer specific links against generic ones. Other than that specific da to the aff are great and I would love to hear them. Everything else here is pretty straightforward.
These debates are okay, I don't really know what the topic should look like so make sure to impact out all of your standards and what limits your interp places on the topic. I don't think plantext in a vacuum is a fantastic we meet but I have voted on it before because oftentimes teams don't have an alternative model. If you can't explain the alternative to plan text in a vacuum you aren't in a great place there. RVI's are not a thing. I also tend to default to competing interpretations.
I love impact turns! I’m willing to listen to anything. I love space!
In general, I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier. I also think you need to impact out the links and explain how they turn each case. I will probably let the aff weigh case and I have never heard a persuasive reason why they can't. I would prefer if there aren't super long overviews that require a new sheet of paper. If there is a floating pik please make it clear in the block.
The stuff I said about K's applies here. I probably won't understand your aff that well and I probably haven't read most of the lit. However, if you are reading a kaff please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key. I am going to need a specific thing to vote on and if you are hedging all of your bets on one arg please make sure to impact it out. More often than not kaffs will have a blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, please develop your arguments fully, nothing annoys me more.
I prefer extinction affs and am probably more familiar with these as I pretty much solely read hard right affs. That being said I do not think I am a terrible judge for soft left affs I need you actually to explain framing and apply it to the other flows.
I am probably neg leaning here. Debate is probably a game, and while it can in some ways be more than that, I think at its heart debate is a game. Fairness is the most persuasive impact and I also personally think it's the best impact. Make sure to have a reason why the aff can't weigh its self and preferably get to case in the 2nr.
k v k:
I have never been in one of these debates. However, I think the aff should be able to get a perm. I would like both sides to explain their specific theory comparing it to either the alt or the aff.
I try to average around a 28.5 and move up or down depending on what happens during the round. If I go below a 27 something happened in the round that I probably talked to you.
If caught clipping lowest speaks possible (this does mean zeros) and auto L
things that are important but had nowhere else to go:
Speech times in HS are 8 min constructive, 3 min cx, 5 min rebuttals, and however much prep the tournament allows, this is non-negotiable. CX is binding. There is only one winner and one loser. I won't vote on things that happened outside of the round (disclosure, prefs, etc.). If you feel unsafe or something offensive happens I will assist you in going to tab. I also will not vote on spreading theory and will be very annoyed to have to listen to it for 2 hours.
You have to read rehighlightings you can't just insert them.
I'm becoming annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am more annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away. A marked copy does not mean the cards that weren't read are removed
I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned, except the first paragraph of this section.
LD:(stolen basically directly from Eleanora)
I have neither competed nor frequently judged in lincoln-douglass; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.
not today fascist
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tech > truth, policy-friendly, if you do line by line and impact calc you'll probably win and get high speaks. Don't be rude.
I did policy debate at Lexington High School and am not debating in college. I'm mostly used to judging novice policy and varsity PF...so do with that what you will. No topic knowledge.
*NDCA Update If you're an LDer—I have no experience judging LD so treat me like a lay judge. Not good for phil/theory/tricks and would prefer policy/larp args. Haven't judged/debated at the varsity level for a while so overall not great for super tech rounds. I'm basically a lay judge who can flow.
<27.0 - if you're saying something blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. i will deck your speaks. depending on the round, I could give the lowest speaks possible at a tournament/drop you.
27.0-27.9 - you're stealing prep, rude, etc.
28.0-28.4 - probably not going to break.
28.5-28.9 - you're pretty good. probably going to break.
29.0-29.9 - you're going to make it to late elims, possibly going to final/win.
30 - You're Q of Lex HQ
Things to help your speaks:
- line by line
- impact calc
- good cross ex
- timing yourself
- being polite
- being time-efficient
Things to deck your speaks:
- being rude (including towards your partner)
- not flowing
- stealing prep
- just reading blocks
I don't know anything about the topic so be sure to explain any technical terms. I think evidence comparison is severely underutilized and impact calc is a must, especially in the final focus.
I'm not familiar with PF disclosure practices but I find it super annoying when debaters ask for evidence in between speeches and won't send full cards. Sending the whole speech doc before you start is just good practice and will help your speaks and expect speaks to dip if you take too long to share cards your opponents call for. If things get gratuitously long I'll just start prep anytime it's not a speech or cx.
Also, I've been seeing K affs in PF? Not sure why that's happening but scroll down to the policy section.
I have not done or judged LD before. Best route is probably to treat me like a lay judge—I don't know anything about phil/theory/tricks.
Reading down blocks < proper line by line. Having actual links and internal links to specific impacts need to be well articulated and impacts must be explained. You can't get away with just saying "they cheated!"
Remember to explain the internal link chain thoroughly and do impact calc. If you're aff and have never seen a certain DA before, don't get psyched out: ask smart cx questions and call them out because all DAs are super sketchy.
Generics are fine, but you can always contextualize them to specific affs (e.g. ff-specific CPs and advantage CPs). Process CPs are probably bad, so I'll be more sympathetic to the aff on theory.
I evaluate them like any other argument—explain the impacts and alt, but the link is where you should do the most work. Find lines in the 1AC and ask specific cx questions—you can find them, even if you don't have a card. This is a little unconventional but I don't think that framework on the K is super important—chances are the neg has a specific epistemological orientation and the way the aff usually impact turns their epistemology or falls under their interp. Either way, the aff will likely use their impacts to do so, so the aff should get to access their impacts—your framework probably allows it.
Seriously underrated. If you just go for 8 minutes of case in the block I'll be super impressed. Really good teams beat teams on their own aff. Aff—even if you don't have answers to a specific argument, you always have your aff to weigh it against. I will vote neg on presumption but only if the neg makes the argument.
If you're a novice, I would be cautious about reading a K aff. Chances are you don't really understand it which means that you won't be able to explain it well either. I'm admittedly not familiar with a lot of k lit, but as always, explain your arguments well. Especially since y'all are novices I am more sympathetic to the neg on framework, but will definitely vote up a k aff if you out tech the neg.
Debate is a game and fairness is an impact. That doesn't mean it can't be educational (although education is not my favorite impact) Going for framework is always fun. That being said, don't expect to just run it and win. I will definitely vote for a k aff if fw isn't run well.
I will evaluate them like any other argument. Slow down on theory—I definitely won't catch all of your analytics if you speed through them. Reject the arg > Reject the team. Remember to explain in round abuse but you can still win on a generic violation if you're on top of the line by line.
Other - reject the arg > reject the team. However, you can still use them in other ways—ie if they drop vague alts bad on the k, instead of rejecting the k you could use it to get new arguments on another flow. Get creative!
If you're down here then you've read my paradigm! If you're a novice, show me this and get some extra speaks.
Hello, my name is Brandon Hermosa and I have been debating for Calvert Hall for 3 years and I have been judging for 2 years.
I am a pupil of the esteemed Coach Susko so it is no surprise I am a core policy debater however I have no bias towards K teams.
I tend to focus a lot more on what is said during a debate than using your evidence to make your arguments for you, so as long as you create a cohesive extended argument throughout the round you will do fine.
Hello! I'm Felix (they/them), a junior studying history and environmental studies at Wellesley College. I did policy debate for three years in high school.
Some notes about my judging style:
* I do flow CX, but it does not affect the outcome of the debate. This is just to give you feedback on how to improve your cross in the future.
* I'm absolutely fine with spreading as long as you're clear, but please don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow it, and there's less of a chance of me remembering it. Keep it clear.
* I really prefer if you roadmap. It just makes it easier for everyone.
* I personally am a fan of Kritiks, but I'm specifically a fan of them being done well. I think you have to know the arguments you're making inside and out for the arguments to even have a chance of working. Run as many off as you want as long as you think you can manage them and do them (and yourself) justice.
* I can time you if you need it. I can also give signals if you need them.
* I like debates with good back and forth (as they're not really debates without them), but respect for your opponents is key.
Spreading is fine. If you’re unclear I’ll let you know. Or add me to the email chain. Take time on your tags so I can flow them.
I don’t flow authors unless you want to draw attention to the quality of evidence, credibility of author, etc. Point it out to me. Otherwise, extend your arguments, don’t just mention the author’s name. And extend/add warrants, even if it’s just important that the other team provided no response. (Again, it helps if I’m on the email chain if you want to draw attention to authors later).
I probably won't flow cx - add it to your speech.
I’ll vote on anything - just tell me what you’re argument is/role of the ballot/what’s important for my vote.
On Ks - make sure you’re clear on all parts of the argument. I enjoy them greatly, but I’m not familiar with anything but the basics (cap K, Abolition K), so articulate the argument clearly please.
Give me an impact calc. On every argument. Especially T. I’m not going to vote on a predetermined sense of abuse. Let me know in round how the argument is affecting you. Or what the significance is for debate going forward.
Never debated policy, 3 years of coaching experience.
-- Update 1/14 --
Please slow down a bit - for my sake and the competition.
Tbh, I'm very lenient on tech issues - I'll be assuming the best out of everyone. If you're concerned with the other team's actions, please bring them up, because I won't.
I feel the need to emphasize again, and more strongly this time, that I vote on impacts. You'll see in my decisions that I list all of the impacts as presented to me and use that to determine which issue I should vote for in the round. Impact calc is the most important part of the round to me. Spend time on it.
David Levin (he/him/his)
Head Debate Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT
Email Chain: email@example.com
be decent to one another (this includes your partner). bigoted language is an auto-drop. put me on the email chain.
Paradigms for PF, PD, LD, and Parli below.
>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for the K. i'm a good judge for theory.
I firmly believe "progressive debate is exclusionary" is wrong, and far too often a line wielded in bad faith to preserve traditionalist norms that prioritize "slickness" of debaters over the intellectual rigor of their arguments. I believe "Progressive debate" has no stable definition, but rather refers to arguments that stray from normative expectations of PF debate, including important discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird the debate to begin with. This article from Stefan Bauschard offers some excellent insights.
Please pre-flow, and ideally, create the email chain >5mins before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs must have full paragraphs, and include highlighting or otherwise clearly denote what words you say from the card (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. I often take longer to decide than most judges, so the more tech/admin time we can trim, the better.
Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one. No preference for room setup, however if there is a rocking chair in the room, I reserve claim to it.
Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant. Critical cases don't necessarily need to be read slower than conventional cases, but reducing your speed usually generates more "rhetorical heft", which helps your cause.
If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. I trust that debates will be conducted in good faith. Do not abuse that trust.
How I flow:
I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep. Therefore, author/tag extensions are insufficient, even when I know what warrant an author/tag extension is referring to. I don't judge-extend arguments, however I will cross-apply arguments made when they are clearly responsive to multiple flows. I flow overviews at the top of the first contention addressed in the speech. I flow weighing at the bottom of the contention being weighed. If you start weighing in rebuttal, I suggest weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.
How I evaluate:
A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first; Most theory and IVI debates fall under this category. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.
Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. Example: "Structural violence first" framing with probability weighing is dissonant with structural violence read as a link to a nuclear war impact -- rather, structural violence should be read AS the impact in this case, resolving both the framing and weighing mechanism, creating a more cohesive argument. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework for how I evaluate the round is resolved, I move to the contentions.
When both teams' frameworks agree, I look to the link first, specifically for answers to these questions: HOW does affirming/negating the res trigger the impact they describe? (qualify your link story) Is there an empirical precedent for the link, or is it speculative? If speculative, I move to uniqueness and ask, what conditions of the status quo produce the link, and how? (qualify the uniqueness). These questions lend me to favor probability in weighing debates.
When frameworks conflict, I ask the same questions as above, however I find myself obligated to consider solvency. Examples: If the hypothetical endorsement of the aff prevents WWIII, but cannot solve back existing structural violence, I lean aff. If the hypothetical endorsement of the negative probably creates better living conditions for marginalized people, but exacerbates to already-existing carbon emissions, I lean neg. Turns can be remarkably effective in conflicting framework debates. The ballot as a token of endorsement is also central to my view of K debate in PF. More on that follows.
If neither team is able to secure offense in the round, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo independently triggers an impact.
Notes on certain arguments:
Topical (normative) Cases - Truth is determined by the flow, unless the claim is patently false or discursively violent. The link/link chain and solvency tend to be the most vulnerable components of any given contention. I find myself to lean toward favoring probability weighing. Defense needs to be extended or conceded. I will only judge kick if the other team doesn't take advantage of the misstep. Turns are great, but be decisive and kick case if you're going for it - its a great demonstration of your technical skills.
Topical (critical) Cases - Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen. Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like? Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link. Engaging a K with your own K is a great way to ensure everyone's speaks go up regardless of my decision.
Non-topical criticisms - Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm. Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one. Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice! Look at the "theory" section below for additional thoughts that might be helpful.
"Off-case" Criticisms - I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal. If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).
Topicality - I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s). I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. T is an a-priori argument, and if you go for it, it should be the whole FF. T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.
Theory - PF is still a very young format, quickly growing in popularity. Debaters do not set the the meeting agendas for the community's governing bodies. Therefore, theory rounds constitute a means for students to determine the direction of the event from the grassroots level. Theory arguments are your way of arguing what should be the broadly held best practices for the activity. "Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory. I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. Some theory things is believe: Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.
Cut cards are and ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence. I will joyfully vote for the lowest threshold paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team. If you genuinely don't know what I mean by "cut cards", please tell me before the round and I will explain this (nicely). Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.
3 rounds judged 2022-23. I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.
Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. Policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just shoot me an email.
2 rounds judged 2022-23. Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.
You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.
4 rounds judged 2022-23. I did not enjoy any of them.
change my mind! :)
firstname.lastname@example.org : 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.
things I've run:
- t classrooms
- families aff
- Trickster Hermeneutics
- IRS DA
- Shutdown DA
- Baudrillard K affs
- FARM BILL
- Parole CP
- States CP
- T LPR
- Presumption against K affs
- Citizenship CP
- psycho set col
- land based set col
- turtle island CP
- 3 tier
- 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.
1) have an email chain or otherwise send evidence in some manner, my email is : email@example.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.
Important: I'm completely deaf in my left ear. This makes it hard to hear you, and it also makes it extra hard to distinguish background noises from voices. The clearer and louder team will often have a significant advantage debating in front of me. Speed: I don't mind speed, but I find it pretty rare that high schoolers are both clear and fast. Which would you prefer, saying 1000 things I can't understand, or saying 100 I can?
Overview: I am open to any compelling and well-articulated argument as to why the game should be played a certain way.
Novices: if you don't roadmap, I will flow straight down and then do my best / flip a coin at the end.
C-X: I don't flow it, but I will pay close attention for speaker-points purposes. Likewise, I think it can be binding if you articulate why it should be.
Style: In my youth I liked full K debates, in my old age I prefer policy. But it's not because I dislike Ks—I just enjoy a techy, hyper-specific policy round most of all. Keep in mind that my knowledge of K literature is well out-of-date with what is fashionable, and even if it weren't, I'm not going to do the work for you by filling arguments that I understand even though you are not explaining them correctly or at all.
I debated in high school for Thomas Jefferson (Virginia) in the 90s. Before the advent of K's. So I'm a little old school. Having said that, I'm open to any arguments (including K's--I'm interested in hearing them) as long as you can explain it clearly, back it up with good evidence, and convince me that it is the reason you win the debate. If you don’t, I’m going to revert to being the federal government and your job is to convince me that I should vote for or against the policy presented.
1. Don't be a jerk. I'll usually give 28/29 speaks unless you're a jerk.
2. Be clear and understand your own arguments. If you can't explain it to me, then you probably won't win. Especially if you're trying to win on a K.
3. Have good evidence. I'll read your evidence. If your tags don't match your evidence, then I probably won't believe you.
4. Please have a roadmap and signpost. I flow. Please include me in the email chain.
5. If something interesting comes up in crossex, you need to bring it up in your speech--I can't promise I'm paying attention during crossex (I probably will be, but I'm old school so you still have to say it during your speech).
Feel free to run any and all types of arguments.
Spreading is fine as long as I can understand you and you sign-post . Cross-x will be open and binding. Do not just read cards/ taglines without explaining them. That is not sufficient enough.
Make sure you are respectful towards one another. Being rude will dock you speaks. This is an educational space that everyone should be able to have fun in.
Ask any questions you may have before the round! Always remember to have fun and try your best.
don't be problematic [i'll lay it out for you: oppression good, death good will be an auto L]
add me to the email chain -- firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
paradigm inspiration -- pia jain <3
policy---X----------------------------------------------k [i probably need a lot of explanation]
shake my hand after the round---------------------X--i would prefer not
do lbl (please)------X-----------------------------------------------no
open speech-------------------------------------------------------X-no (i'll only flow what the actual speaker says)
every speech is MY speech-----------------------------------X-----i have a partner
“extend ___”----------------------------------------------X---“actual warrants - that’s ___”
"what's your plan?"----------------------------------------X----i will stop paying attention to cx
block split--X--------------------------------------------block repetition
frame my ballot-------X------------------------------------------just talk
signposting----X--------------------------------------------switching b/w flows w/o saying so
new args in the 2ar------------------------------X----------NO! [i really like good 2ar extrapolation]
case debate----X----------------------------------------------drop it
conditionality good----------X----------------------------conditionality bad (2-3)
t in the 2nr---------------------------------------X------------not really
*to note: i have a very high threshold for k-aff solvency. if i think your aff does not have an actual way to spread your movement i will not vote for you
dee-ay or see-pee------------------------------------X---”dis-ad” or “counterplan”
be a nice person-X------------------------------------------intimidate the other team
keep track of your prep---------------X-------------------------make me do it [i will probably do so anyways]
read the crime da--------------------------------------------------X-don't
generally 27.3 - 28.6, you will 100 percent get below a 27 if you are problematic
+0.1---make a good joke about pia, mahima, amanda, or caroline
+0.1---be partnership goals like lexington pj (subject to my judgement)
+0.1---tell me to "stick to the status quo" if you go for a neg on presumption ballot
+0.5---i got into college while judging you
-0.1 ---if you ask me if im related to antoine or if im a debater in the round
if i judge you in other events besides policy
other events----------------------------------------------------------------X-sorry i literally know nothing about it**
--i literally mean nothing i do not even know the speech times, prep times, etc.
--paraphrasing evidence is something i probably will not flow so please read your cards as they are highlighted
--i am very tech over truth (unless it is problematic) and okay with speed
--impact calc will definitely help me evaluate the debate
--explain your framing and why i should prefer it to your opponent's otherwise i will default to what i have on my flow
also, feel free to email me or facebook messenger me after the round if you have any questions
Hi, my name is Yash. I'm a second year debater for NYU, debating in JV. While I personally run more policy style arguments, I'm open toward all arguments...except for League of Legends spec. Never League of Legends spec. I'm fine with spreading, but speed should not be a substitute for clarity, and slow down a little bit on the tags. I have a lot of emotions on my face most of the time during rounds, so use that to your advantage. I have a few more thoughts on some specific arguments, but really my motto is you do you, just do it persuasively. Also, bringing me gummi bears before the round won't help you win but it'll help sustain me.
While I do not oppose K arguments, I have limited experience running and opposing them. If you do end up running a Kritik make sure the argument is well articulated and understandable. If you need to explain the argument in CX explain it clearly.
Really enjoy DAs, and am familiar with the most common ones - politics, trade, econ, etc. Just reading the most cards doesn't mean you win the uniqueness debate or you win the link debate though.
I like performance affs, but will definitely vote for T if you're winning the T flow - give me clear impacts on both the aff and the neg side. If you're a pretty topical policy aff and you drop the T flow I will literally hate you.
A gnarly CP and a well articulated DA is a pretty slamming combo in my books, so please, bring it on.
Please add me to the email chain...email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please add me to the email chain- email@example.com
Previous debate history:
I was on the Lexington policy debate team for 4 years and graduated in 2020. I know pretty much nothing about the current topic and am used to judging novice so... do with that what you will.
Please be nice to each other.
I don't like or understand the k. Unless it's cap. I like judging policy rounds.
Everything below the LD update applies mostly to novices, but feel free to give it a read if you're varsity too.
I have judged pf at a couple tournaments now. I don't know anything about the current topic so explain everything clearly. Speak well and make arguments. <3
I am a policy debater. That means I am tech over truth and know how to flow, but do know that I have not done or judged LD before and I am 100% serious about the following things:
I'm a 1 for larp. Please note: I will tell you now that if you do not read a topical larp/lay case I will be confused. As for nontopical affs, please regard my thoughts from the policy section.
4 for phil (yes, even kant)
6 for friv theory, tricks, rvis, nibs, and any other underdeveloped cheesy arguments
If you are a circuit debater who is debating a lay debater, be nice or risk a 26.
I also know nothing about the current topic so please explain everything well.
I'll probably give you all decent speaks unless you were extremely rude/act like you don't care about the round that is going on.
Things that will raise your speaks:
1. Having a road map and signposting during your speech
2. Looking at me during crossex
3. Being a partnership that reminds me of Lex HQ (aka partner goals)
Things that will DECK your speaks:
1. Acting like you're better than your partner
2. Reading the same blocks in every speech and not engaging the other team
3. Not flowing
4. Being ableist/sexist/homophobic/racist - unacceptable
I like a good topicality debate. Make sure you impact out T on both sides and go in depth with it. A blippy "it's too hard to be neg" argument or "aff is topical enough" will not suffice. Make sure the aff actually violates the T violation you choose though! Aff- if you don't violate, don't spend too much time on it! I'm willing to vote on wild T violations if you give me a good reason to.
Love them- make sure to do impact calc and explain the internal link chain clearly. Try to do specific link analysis too- another thing that will raise your speaks. Aff should try to attack the internal link chains, don't just read impact defense.
Like them- with generic CPs, try to have a solvency advocate specific to the aff. Advantage CPs are cool too- make sure you explain them well. Cheaty CPs are fun, but be prepared for theory because I'll give a lower threshold for the aff on theory if I think the CP is really cheaty.
They're fine- make sure you explain the thesis of the K well, how the aff makes what you're kritiking worse, and what the world of the alt looks like. Your links should be to the aff and not the squo. Try to find lines in the aff's evidence that link to your K and point them out! Alts- I tend to prefer alts that take action rather than "say no" or "reject the 1AC", but I will still vote on them. Framework- make sure you interact with the other team's framework (if they read one), don't just read the same block in every speech.
Case debate!!!! Do it!! Aff- Explain your aff and how you solve! Don't forget about your aff- it is your CHILD! If you don't know what to do- weigh your aff against everything! I will vote neg on presumption, but only if the neg makes that argument.
Defend something. I don't mind listening to kaffs, but you need to explain what you do to actually solve for your impacts. I usually read policy affs and am more policy leaning, but I'm down for a good k debate and will vote on one if it's debated well. Be confident and have nuanced answers to framework and cap!
Debate is a game. Framework has a special place in my heart <3. Fairness is an impact. BUT that being said, you have to impact it out- don't disgrace framework PLEASE. I'm more than willing to vote on framework, but only if it's run well. Make sure you attack the case too.
Condo- 4+ conditional advocacies is probably abusive, but if you can convince me that it's justified, then it's fine. Aff should always try to have condo in the 2AC as a fallback if there's 2+ condo.
Other theory- I'm probably not going to vote on it, unless something seems extremely abusive or is dropped.
1. If you drop something, pretend/trick me into thinking you didn't.
2. Don't get scared of other teams, act like you can win until after the 2AR- don't give up!
3. Bring what you said in crossex into your speeches! Crossex is a strategic time to set up/make arguments.
4. Frame your speeches at the beginning of the 2NR/2AR! Tell my why you win and what I'm voting on. Make the judge do less work.
5. Do what you do best- don't let this/me be a reason to completely change your debating style!
Put me on the email chain, please: firstname.lastname@example.org
TL;DR - Read kritiks, k affs, and/or framework. Don't go too fast please, I'm old now ☺️
My name is Kat, I use she/her pronouns, I did K debate for Bronx Science for four years and I went to TOC my senior year. I'm now a sophomore in University, I don't do debate anymore. I like high theory, cap, and framework. Win the flow to win, how you want to speak/debate is always up to you. I'm a young boomer so I generally(?) give good(?) speaks.
Hi! I'm Michelle and I'm a senior at BCC.
Yes, put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I'm gonna be judging mostly novices this year so my main piece of advice is to run what you know and are familiar with. I've mostly been a k debater so that's what I prefer and am more familiar with, but I'd choose a good cp/da debate over a terribly articulated k any day. I'll vote for most arguments so long as they're explained well and not blatantly offensive (racist, sexist, ableist, etc).
Other things- always debate the case, do all the impact calc, truth > tech (within reason), speed is fine but be clear, don't be boring, and don't be a bad person
First year student - Go to Rutgers Newark - I DO NOT debate in college.
Yes, I would like to be apart of the email chain. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Yes, you can spread.
Yes, it can be open cx.
Quick Things to Know ...
*DO NOT say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic. Even if the other team doesn't make it a voting issue (which they should ... hint hint) I will.
*Impact out all of your arguments!
On to the Specifics ...
CPs are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff plan.
DAs are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.
- I'm also not as persuaded by nuclear war impacts. You can try, just have a good internal link story.
Ks are my favorite! BUT this DOES NOT include white POMO ... those are my least favorite. You can read them if you like but I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook", so you will have to explain. Do not take this to mean that I will vote up a queer anarchy k, anti-blackness k etc. just because its read. Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions, and you got my ballot
FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on it, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's.
I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory especially if the violation is unreasonable.
- I DO NOT think Fairness is an impact.
- I will likely buy condo bad if its more than 6 off.
That's all! GOOD LUCK! DON'T SUCK! HAVE FUN!
Note: Made some edits to my paradigm since I'm a 3rd year out now...
Hi! I debated LD for Bronx Science (NY) for 4 years, qualled to TOC senior year. I'm studying Philosophy right now at Johns Hopkins.
Email chain: email@example.com
Pomo or High Theory Ks/Performance Ks/Phil: 1/2
IR/Security Ks: 6/STRIKE
- You can read whatever you want and I'll do my best to adapt. I would rather there be a good round than you trying to adapt by reading something you've never done before.
- I really, really, like phil or k substantive debate (does not have to be topical but one-off NC then AC top-down strats would make me happy). Will boost speaks for a good clash.
- Don't be mean in CX, especially if someone you're debating is clearly a novice/someone less experienced than you.
- I read a lot of pomo Ks my senior year, the ones I'm most familiar with are Deleuze, Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Warren, Nietzsche, Marx, Edelman, and Wilderson. I don't think this list matters though I'm sure there are many books/articles written by these authors I haven't read.
- I tend to err truth>tech in rep K situations where the card is miscut/misrepresented.
- I don't really understand IR or Security Ks... Please over-explain.
- Default Tech>>>>>>Truth unless you make arguments for otherwise.
- I'm more familiar with T than Theory, but I guess they are structurally similar.
- Case-specific standards are really cool.
- Familiar with a lot of philosophy, please explain things regardless.
- Slow down (please) on fully analytic phil cases. Examples are cool.
- I'm not amazing at flowing, especially blippy exempted 10 point underviews so if I miss something rip
- Technicality and flowing aside. I find induction/deduction/skep debates interesting if done properly.
- I'll try my best :(
1. Will yell 'clear' as many times as needed, and will probably not dock speaks but if I miss an arg it's on you. My face is pretty expressive, maybe explain more if I look confused...
2. Compiling doc is prep, sending is not, pls don't steal prep.
3. +.2 speaks if you show me your wiki BEFORE I submit the decision (osource, first 3 last 3 in the textbox, and round reports - you can attach a screenshot when sending out the speech doc)
4. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc... and don't plagiarize from people's wiki without giving credit
5. Not sure how judge kick works, be clear if that's something you are going for.
It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.
-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-
College Prep, Oakland, California
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Coach at Success Academy Queens 1 Middle School
Full Judging Record: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=12179
In General... Read anything you want to read as long as it isn't racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic - you catch my drift. Junior year, I defended no plan coloniality affs on the Latin America topic and only went for one off kritiks on the neg. Senior year, I read an oil aff on the Oceans topic and went for politics disads. Given this, I am seriously welcome to all argument types as long as you argue for them well. Be nice, there is no blurred line between being disrespectful and a good debater. Also, I'd rather not call for cards at the end of a debate, explanation of your arguments during the round matter the most.
- Speed: I am fine with all ranges of speed as long as you are clear.
- Case: I like good case debate. Being able to tear apart the aff's 1AC is a great route for a win. Detailed case debate also shows you are well-prepared which is always a plus.
- DAs: I really like it when good impact debates happen on disads. Explain smart turns and impact filters. I am also a fan of smart defensive arguments.
- CPs: No one likes super generic counterplans but I get it. More specific the better but even if it isn't just be prepared to give good spin or else I won't be very compelled to vote for the counterplan.
- Ks: I am familiar with most of the kritiks read in high school debate. Thorough explanations are extremely important. I will not understand the point you are trying to make if you just throw a bunch of philosophical jargon at me.
- Topicality: T is cool just don't read T as a time suck. I think a well thought out T argument can be very dangerous for an aff.
- Framework: I am not predisposed to voting a certain way on framework as I have been a debater on both sides of the argument. I think an aff that is winning its value within the debate space is in good shape. On the other hand, a neg who is winning the limits debate is in good shape.
- Theory: I don't really see myself voting on theory unless it is flat out dropped or it is conditionality. Conditionality is probably not something that I will vote for if the neg reads only 1 conditional position. However, I think theory is underutilized in terms of using it to try to get a team to kick an argument.