Meadows Scrimmage 2
2020 — NSDA Campus, NV/US
Novice LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
-Tech and Truth?
-Speed is fine but please be clear.
-Do what you do best. I am open to Affs/K’s that I may not be well-versed on but it is your job to articulate the argument(s) - “the best debaters do not win by confusing their opponents” - I also need to know what I am voting for.
-Debate is a game and you should aim to win. You do not enter a round knowing exactly what you will go for but rather make decisions on what occurs within the room.
*Don’t be racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic or argue these are good in ANY way, I will not vote for you.
-Simply because the other team did not say the phrase “Role of the Ballot” does not mean that they dropped the framing question - some debaters may phrase this differently. Whoever controls the framing of the debate will win my ballot.
Condo - will vote for but need impacts to these, I prefer an articulation of why having multiple contradictory off cases forces the aff to debate themselves rather than “x amount of off case is cool.”
Policy - tell me what the plan does and extend solvency accordingly. I prefer arguments, do not just read 30 cards and not explain what they mean.
K Affs - I read them most of the time in high school however, I will not vote for you ONLY because I love K affs. You need to have an advocacy that articulates what the aff does and be able to defend it entirely. For instance you have to defend why the aff precedes a full endorsement of the topic.
Framework vs. K Affs- I will vote on framework but I encourage you to not only read alone. At least try to engage the aff and if you are unable to do so, this will make your fw arguments more persuasive rather than simply resorting to only framework.
Please do not just read your generic 8 minute block in the 2NC without engaging the specifics of the aff that make it impossible to be neg- provide instances where the aff has proved this. This goes with any off, speaker points will be awarded generously.
-The role of the neg is to disprove the aff.
-Case debates are often undermined and should not be. I like case arguments that make the aff question their solvency.
-CPs/PICs: If they aren't kicking aff on theory - go for them! Otherwise, can be considered cheating.
-DA’s: Need strong internal links, impact extension, specifics are awesome!
-Kritiks: Love them! You need a good link, the more explicit it is the better! You do not need to have the best link if you can use instances in which the aff links. Know the literature you are reading.
Topicality is not my fave but slow down when you read shells. I will vote on it if the aff mishandles it but do not reach.
Questions? Email me: email@example.com
Be nice and explain your arguments well.
If you spread, you are required to send a copy of the doc to your opponent at the start of your speech.
Add me onto the email chain (email above).
Flex prep is allowed.
You are required to time your speeches.
Hi!! My name is Bea (she/her) - I am a junior @ Immaculate Heart and have been debating for 2 yrs. I mostly read policy arguments but do whatever makes you comfortable in round. You should record your speeches just in case of tech issues. Email me if you have any specific questions :))
Please include me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Marlborough '22, I compete in LD, mostly in circuit tournaments.
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Logic > Tech > Truth
My paradigm is pretty similar to other Marlborough debater and coaches.
Organization and weighing are really important, sign post to make it easy to follow along.
Whatever speed you go at should be fine as long as it is not exceptionally fast.
Flex prep is fine.
Sending the doc doesn't count as prep, but please don't be sketchy about your prep time.
I am very comfortable with plans, CPs/PICs, DAs, T, theory, and some Ks (as long as they have clear explanations). I will probably not be a very good judge for unconventional Ks or phil positions (I don't have a very good understanding of high theory kritiks, but if they are explained well I will vote on them).
I mostly read plans on the aff and CPs and DAs on the neg, and I most enjoy plan vs CP/DA policy-style debates.
I strongly dislike tricks, truth testing, and friv theory. I do not want to vote on these arguments, but I will if I have to.
about me —
i'm sam! (she/her)
i'm a varsity debater (current sophomore) w/ bws: i started debate in 6th grade doing mspdp (similar to parli? i think?) and started lincoln douglas in 9th grade. despite what it might say down below, at the end of the day i recognize my role as judge to be impartial and cast a ballot based on merit, and will do that to the best of my abilities.
my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
tl;dr bc i made this way too long –
be nice, be smart, + debate the way you debate best
i'll buy into anything (non-offensive) if you do it well, tech > truth
weighing is nice
general stuff —
- tech > truth (but i won't assume an argument is j automatically incredible bc it was dropped)
- be respectful to your opponent!! be assertive, be competitive, but don't be a jackass
- i don't care if you want to keep your cam off, sit, or even give your speech lying down in bed, i'll always judge on content (odds are i won't be watching you too closely)
- time yourselves, but i'll be timing too just in case
- i understand theory and basic k's/phil but if your fw or k is complicated, it's assume i'll have a harder time understanding it (sorry)
- i track what happens in CX
- you're entitled to tell me to "please for the love of god wrap it up" during my rfd bc if my paradigm is any indication i have a propensity to talk too much
**any offensive (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.) arguments/cases or otherwise making me/your opp too uncomfortable to continue will mean an automatic round stop and L20**
on speaking —
- spreading is fine but quality > quantity of arguments (+ don't deliberately outspread your opp)
- slow down a little on tags/analytics not on the doc regardless of default speed—i have a tendency to miss analytics if they're said too fast or not on the doc and if i don't hear/see it i won't flow it
- good weighing + impacting? incredible
- tying your case back to your framework? beautiful
- if you don't extend your arguments, i'll scratch them from the flow
- if i look confused or sus in round, take it as a cue to explain more because i'm lost (sorry again)
- strawmanning arguments will lower your speaks, but ik it's normally unintentional
- lying in the final speech is Bad, Kids
- be nice in CX, interrupting needlessly or being rude won't do anything for you
on case —
- i'm willing to vote on almost anything if you debate it well
- i'm hesitant on friv theory but i'll still vote on it
- stay away from running identity K's for an identity that's not yours
- new 2ar or 2nr arguments won't be flowed
- dropped arguments will be noted as such
- make links to big impacts clear
- i vote on theory over k over case unless you give me a reason to change that ordering
- this is 100% just my own personal vendetta (sorry) but one link chain to 3+ different extinction impacts is gross
- explain link chains!! + clarity > sounding smart with big words
- running a k and a da that links into your own k is...yuck
- 1 condo off isn't inherently abusive
- multi-plank theory shells are funky cool if done well
lowkey abusive ways to raise speaker points —
this will not determine who wins but i think it'd be Funky Fresh if you try it...and i mostly want to see how far people will go for debate
- make me laugh (pro tip: i like sass as long as it's at the case, not the debater + roasting me is fair game)
- reference john mulaney, atla/lok, the good place, the office, tdp, and do it well
I debate on the LD national circuit for Marlborough.
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I prefer policy-style debate and mostly run CPs, DAs, and T/Theory. I am familiar with basic Ks and I have run Ks before, but I am not very well immersed in the literature, so be sure to be explanatory, especially for unconventional Ks. I am not a good judge for phil/tricks. I highly prefer a substantive debate over, say, going for condo against 1 condo CP, but I will generally vote on anything that meets the threshold of an argument.
*record your speeches for online debate*
- an argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact
- I'm fine with speed, but don't sacrifice clarity (online debate probably warrants going a bit slower)
- I default to util; if you run another framework be explanatory
- sign post and be as organized as possible
- weighing can be a tie-breaker
- I try to be as least interventionist as possible; you should write the ballot for me
- Don't be offensive or rude. Part of your role as a debater is to make the experience educational and comfortable for everyone. This is especially true in debates where you are the more experienced debater.
My judging philosophy is similar to other Marlborough debaters and coaches, so if you want a more in-depth look, feel free to check their paradigms. I debated this topic so you can also check my wiki to see the types of arguments I read.
I am happy to explain to you the reason for my decision and answer any questions you have after round as long as you are respectful. Feel free to email me with any questions before round.
I'm Andrew Kim and I'm a varsity debater at the Meadows School.
I will basically listen to every argument no matter how stupid it is.
I probably won't vote for bad theory because bad theory is bad but if you can convince me it's good theory, go ahead and run it.
Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Be respectful of your opponent. I will listen to almost any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation.
Also please try to keep me interested in the debate, I find humor to be very important as well.
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am currently a varsity LD debate at Marlborough and will graduate in 2022. I compete in circuit tournaments and tend to run policy arguments.
I am fine with spreading, but please be clear and slow down on analytics
Please sign post
Flex prep is fine with me
You have to take prep to compile the speech doc but not to send it. That being said, don’t be sketchy about sending the speech doc.
My debate philosophy is pretty similar to other Marlborough debaters and coaches
I am very comfortable with T, Theory, CPs, and DAs. I am pretty comfortable with Ks that are well-explained.
I am not a good judge for unconventional Ks or phil
I mostly read policy plans, CPs, and DAs
I strongly dislike tricks, truth testing, and frivolous theory but I will vote on them if I have to
Hi! I'm Jane (Immaculate Heart '22). I've been debating for two years and qualified to the TOC my junior year.
Email chain, please (even if you're not spreading!): email@example.com. You should locally record speeches in case of tech problems.
Policy: primarily read these arguments and love these debates.
T/Theory: tech > truth. Will default to reasonability, drop the arg (when possible), fairness and education, no RVIs, but read paradigm issues. I think disclosure is very good.
Ks: the neg should include a link wall and start the framework debate in the 1NC. The aff should impact turn things when possible!
Philosophy: enjoy these arguments, even though I don't read a ton of them! Partial to comparative worlds and epistemic modesty.
Hey! I'm Leighton Liu. I am a varsity debater for The Meadows School.
I expect both debaters to be polite and respectful to each other and have a clean fair debate.
Other than that, I will listen to most arguments as long as the evidence and explanation is sufficient.
*for the important things go to the arguments section*
i originally made this #short and sweet but my friends (rahul yates and samantha ho) made theirs very long and now i feel pressured to do the the same, so here it goes:
debate: i do ld at brentwood (circuit, flay, lay), and have made it to second round of elims at flay. my whole "what i'll vote on" is in the "arguments" section.
i am not related to christian mccaffrey
astrology: libra sun, pisces moon, scorpio rising
-if there is an email chain, please include me on it (firstname.lastname@example.org)
-don't be problematic (ie being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc)
-don't be rude. it's ok to get competitive and all (because debate is #a game) but just don't do anything that is intended to hurt your opponent's feelings or mock them.
-have fun! yes, it's nice to win but don't put too much pressure on yourself. it's not worth it.
-i'll vote on everything as long as it is not problematic
-tech > truth
-weighing is *chefs kiss*
-impacts *another chefs kiss*
-theory and (standard) k's are good (just again make sure you ~weigh~)
-framework debates are cool i guess, but i find them boring (i'm not going to vote against you if you start one though, because you do whatever floats your boat)
-spreading is fine
-i ADORE harry potter (not in the millennial way) and percy jackson, because they make me feel nostalgic. reference these, and i'll be happy.
-i also like atla, but it is not nostalgic apparently. reference this, and i'll be happy.
-some more teenagery things i like are brooklyn 99, john mulaney, bo burnham, greta gerwig, and criminal minds. reference these, and i'll be happy.
-ALSO: i have an avatar wall, a draco malfoy cardboard cut out, and a timothee chalamet cardboard cut out; if you ask to see or compliment one of these things, i'll be really happy.
-lastly, if on the off chance any of you got this far and went to paul revere, make a reference to it, and it's a great way to get me to give you high speaks.
TLDR: I've done 4 years of LD for Marlborough School and 3 years of PF read anything in front of me at any speed but be kind and slow down for tags
Framework: depending on how progressive your circuit is, make your own choices I'm most comfortable with util, I'll listen to anything but explain it fully if you are going to read it. If you do read framing USE IT, this takes up speech time don't let it disappear in your last few speeches.
General stuff: Slow down for tags, articulate your links, solve for your offense. Fully articulate your arguments and why they matter. Please engage with your opponent there is nothing worse than a debate without clash. Except for a debate where the debaters are rude or cruel.
Ks: I've run them I have a solid understanding of the basics, don't assume I understand your obscure stuff but slow down for tags and articulate links and it'll be fine. You must prove alt solvency. If you don't solve theres no reason to vote for you
Email me any questions and the cases: email@example.com
Yo, I'm Oliver Song. I'm a varsity debater at The Meadows School. I'm not super picky but there are things I WON'T VOTE FOR.
I probably won't vote for bad theory because bad theory is bad but if you can convince me it's good theory, go ahead and run it.
I will never NEVER, vote on RVIs. Never again. If you say the words "RVI" I will sit and stare at you with a disappointed face and write down nothing on my flow.
Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Keep in mind humor can sway me. Be respectful of your opponent. I will listen to almost any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation.
Hey Everyone! (Last Updated: 10/19/2020)
I'm Rahul Yates. I'm a sophomore at Brentwood School. I started debate in 6th grade, competed in MSPDP in 7th grade, and since 9th grade I've been competing in LD (lay, flay, and circuit). I'm getting better at circuit, and I've made it to Elims & won speaker awards at lay/flay tournaments. I will judge you to the best of my abilities.
Since I'm mostly judging novices, I should be able to understand what you all are saying in terms of argumentation. For the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org will do. Pronouns: he/him/his
- Framework: I hate like intense framework and huge framework debates, but I do expect you (when you and your opponent have different frameworks) to explain to me why your framework matters, why I should evaluate this debate under it, and why you win under BOTH your framework and your opponent's framework.
*Note about frameworks: I usually debate util or structural violence frameworks (which I believe are the best and simplest), so I will generally like it if you have that as your framework. For the Sept/Oct topic, I know people like having Democracy or rights frameworks, but I will need you to explain why I should prefer that over your opponents framework, especially since I will probably default to util or SV.*
- Contentions/DAs/CPs: I'm pretty familiar with these. I tend to read stock positions or positions that are pretty close to stock. I will generally prefer ones that have a clear link and impact. So, if you are reading a contention about how social inequality in the US will lead to a totalitarian regime, I will need more than 2 cards in it and a clear link and impact for me to really believe the credibility of this argument.
- Kritiks/Performances: While I probably won't be seeing a lot of these, I have a hard time truly understanding these, so if you decide to read one, please make sure you explain it really well. I generally prefer things that really engage with the topic, but if you believe that your K or performance pertains to the topic and is more important than the actual topic itself, please make sure you are ready to explain this.
- Theory: I like theory. While I probably won't be seeing a lot of it, I think theory is a really smart way to call out your opponent for something. I'll be amused if you read like random/frivolous theory in front of me, although I probably won't vote on it as much, but other things like PICs Bad theory kind of stuff is fine, and I think you should read it. It's a lot better than actually trying to engage with your opponent's unfairness. I'm fine with Disclosure Theory; go for it. Unless your opponent has a really good reason why they shouldn't/didn't disclose, I'll vote on it. When you read theory against an argument, I will evaluate it above the argument itself (theory = highest layer).
- Speed: I'm fine with any speed. If you notice your opponent is talking a lot slower than you are or will be, try to slow down a little bit so you don't look too rude, but it's not your problem that they're reading slowly. Read as fast as you want as long as the tag lines are clear and that you emphasize the important things you want me to listen to. If you're spreading and I don't have the doc, eventually I'll just stop flowing which probably won't be so good for you.
- CX: Use this well. Clarifying questions are fine. Don't ask too many because you don't want to seem like you have no clue (even if you do) what your opponent said, and it also helps me (the judge) understand the opponent's arguments better, which you don't want to waste your own time on. I'll really love it if you use CX for a solid line of questioning, and then bring it up in a speech.
- Impacts & Weighing: As I said before, please make sure most/all of your arguments have some kind of impact to them so I can evaluate them. I think weighing in the 2NR and 2AR are really helpful for me to understand the main points of the round and then vote on them. No weighing will make my job a lot harder.
- Speaking/Speech Delivery: I know that debate can be tiring and straining, so I won't dock you if you seem tired. Just try not to do things like yawn in the middle of a debate (my opponent did this twice in one speech once) and seem really uninterested. Even if you're making good points, I will feel like you don't really care, and it may lead me to consider what your opponent is saying more than what you are.
- Other things: Don't be rude. If your opponent is being unnecessarily rude, then I will love it if you throw some sass back at them. They started it, not you. Don't get too contentious though. I know everyone trips up sometimes, but please don't say a racist/sexist/homophobic etc. argument and then keep repeating it. Bonus points if you call out your opponent for doing this.
- Other things pt. 2: I'm not really sure if I prefer tech over truth or vice versa. If you read an argument and it is dropped, I will flow it through and assume it is true. In terms of dropped arguments, I know everyone drops things on both sides, and honestly dropping arguments is fine sometimes, especially if the argument doesn't really have much of an impact. About impacts, I really like it when each contention/CP/DA has some sort of impact. If you just read a contention telling me social inequality exists, I feel like that's a waste of time for you and me. Instead, connect that social inequality to the resolution and your argument, and how you solve for it. Lastly, please try not to misrepresent/strawman your opponent's arguments. Unless it's a really confusing argument that neither you nor I understand, please use CX and your mind to figure it out. If you start saying random things to an argument that is completely different to what your opponent read, you probably won't get my ballot.
I know this was a lot, but at the end of the day, just present what you have prepared and do your best to engage with your opponent, and I will do my best to make sure I deliver a fair decision. I've lost too many rounds to unfair (in my opinion) decisions, and I don't want to leave you feeling that way.