MSDL First Frost Tournament
2020 — NSDA Campus, MA/US
LD Judge - Varsity Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI'm a parent judge for Acton Boxborough.
Please talk slow. It is hard to make a decision if I don't know your arguments.
I listen to crossfire in order to scope the strength of your arguments.
Evaluate me as a lay judge.
*Updated for Polar Bear 2021.
Intro
Debated for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in LD for 4 years, mostly running k's on the national circuit during my varsity years.
Email me at jeffreyhuangdragon@gmail.com if you wanna send me speech docs
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me over Facebook messenger, I go by Jerfy Huang
In terms of debate, I really enjoy unique and interesting arguments that break away from the norm, and I will tend to award higher speaker points depending on how much I enjoyed the debate. Overall, although I think that both framework and contention level debates are important, more often than not debates will break down into arguments on the contention level anyways, so in the cases that they do, please try to make as many well warranted arguments and extensions as possible. As a judge, I can only evaluate arguments that have been extended in your final speech, which means that you must not only respond to your opponents arguments but also reiterate your own in both claim and warrant in every speech in order to win your arguments and the round as a whole. Bonus points if you're able to win the framework debate and link back/weigh your arguments under the framework. If you have any questions about the how the round went, want any feedback about what you can do better, or just want to know more about debate as a whole, feel free to ask before or after the round and ask away.
As always, please do not be rude to your opponents, especially if you are a someone that's more experienced than your opponent. Please don't spread in the novice division, and only ask for consent first with your opponent if you're debating in varsity.
National circuit stuff below (ignore if you are debating at a local tournament and aren't debating progressively)
Basic stuff
Don't be rude. any racist/sexist/ableist etc. args and/or inappropriate behavior will be punished accordingly.
Tech over truth. Its like reading the fine print of a contract: its on you if you miss any of it. However if there's an arg over what a card says word for word or any issue related to such matters I will call for evidence and pass judgement.
Please disclose, disclosure debates are frivolous.
Speaks
Since speaks are usually inflated, I give them as follows:
30 = I think you'll win the tournament
29 = I think you'll do well in elims
28 = I think you'll go positive/break
27 = average
26 = going negative
25 = you screwed up horribly
K's
Kritiks have always been my favorite argument, with phil being the next best thing, because I've always loved the spirit of the kritik and creating a separate and distinct space apart from theory and policy. HOWEVER, there are 2 things that I despise about the current practice of running critical arguments in the LD community:
1) running a kritik purely as an argument that you've recycled from past topics
2) being inconsiderate of your situation/circumstances and/or contradicting the kritik
Kritiks should be read like a good story: I should be enjoying it in round instead of zoning out to the same cards I've heard countless times, and when I evaluate it at the end of the round I should be able to understand what its purpose was and how its made debate a better place.
Also, concise overviews at the beginning of speeches and explanations of how the K functions and how it applies to your opponent are key to successfully convincing me to vote for the K, especially with denser lit, since otherwise you're probably doing a bad job of showing me why it even matters for me or the debate. This means that you should have convincing arguments as to why the ROB matters first and foremost for the round, and how you're doing the better job at upholding that standard with the body of the K.
Bonus points if you're running Nietzsche and actually know what you're doing.
THEORY/T
A lot of my qualms about K's actually cross apply here. I'm fine with theory, and I truly believe that they have an important role in shaping the debate space, but at the same time so much generic shells gets read that it makes me question why the person even wants to debate.
Make sure you make clear how all parts of the shell link together: slow down on interps, read an ACTUAL violation instead of just the opposite of your interp, standards should actually prove why and how SPECIFICALLY YOUR OPPONENT is abusive, and voters should tell me why the shell matters.
On disclosure, be considerate of who you're hitting and the circumstances, if your opponent is clearly a novice or they disclosed 20 mins before the round instead of 30, don't just run disclosure for the sake of putting more ink of the flow. Maybe actually debating the topic would be a nice change of pace eh?
POLICY/LARP
Literally just do your thing, make sure you weigh and all that stuff, imo its as basic as it gets.
If you're LARPing make sure your arguments make sense and that you know the policy like the back of your hand, don't just make up some facts or spend half of CX scrolling through your case saying "i think [some random author] says it somewhere in the case"
Also please try to read unique and fully flushed out arguments, I don't want to listen to the same heg DA 6 times in a row
If you're hitting LARP, reading good evidence is great, case turns/plan flaw are greater
PHIL
Next best thing after K, just make sure to know/explain your lit and actually have logical warrants in cards. I'll know if something's off and I'll call for cards appropriately
TRICKS
Not too familiar, just a meme in my books, don't run these unless you're trying to be funny or if you're confident enough that you can explain how I should evaluate them
Hi I am a second year parent judge. I prefer a understandable and normal pace when you read your case. I am not too fimilar with a lot of fancy terms so keep that in mind with the type of case you read and how you rebuttal. As for speaker points, remain clear and understandable and you should get fairly high speaks of me.
I am a parent judge with introductory experience. I have undergraduate degrees in mechanical engineering and philosophy, and work as a client account lead for a global consulting firm.
boston latin academy '17
smith college '21
email: maryannepas@gmail.com (yes, pls add me to the chain!)
i am a senior in college and have been judging on and off since i graduated high school. i did policy debate, mostly reading k arguments. i have not done any research for this topic so i would really appreciate explanations of topic-specific minutiae & acronyms
TLDR:
do what you do best unless it is offensive. to get my ballot, all you gotta do is tell me how to vote, how to evaluate the round, and explain why you should win. your last speech should be writing a ballot for me. pick the arguments you are winning on the flow and explain/weigh your impacts, and dont drop anything important. please extend warrants, not just tags. i will also probably not do any work for you unless the debate is really close so i would much rather you explain the warrants of a card rather than telling me to read it after the round. most importantly, just have fun with it and be kind to each other.
LD
i have judged a handful of LD rounds, however, i never did LD in high school so I'm really not super familiar with it. as long as you explain your arguments though, I should be able to follow. if you go for theory, i really want to hear in-round impacts or scenarios. if you go for an RVI, make sure that it is reasonable.
Speed
slow down for online debates. please be clear or i will probably not be able to flow you.
K affs
i am absolutely cool with these arguments, and really appreciate well-written k affs. i love judging these debates, however, these affirmatives do require lots of explanation in comparison to regular policy affs -- explain your methods, your authors' arguments, why a rejection of the rez is important...
Ks
explain the alternative and tell me why the k outweighs the aff. i love a good link debate. don't expect me to be familiar with your k lit though, please explain your arguments, especially if you are reading high theory.
Topicality
do impact calc, compare interp evidence, and weigh your interpretation against the other.
Framework
tell me why your model of debate is preferable, why education offered through policy simulation on this topic is good, do impact calc. i appreciate a good TVA.
Theory
i haven't voted on theory a lot, but if you prove in round abuse and impact it well, you're golden.
Flashing
PLEASE keep it short and sweet. If you start taking too long to flash, I will start prep.
Feel free to e-mail me or ask me questions about my paradigm before the round! If you want to know more about how I think about debate, just read Moselle Burke's paradigm
I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well.
I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory.
Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.
I am a parent judge, and this is my sixth tournament. Please keep to traditional/lay arguments and no spreading nor theory. I will award the ballot to whoever best convinces me for their side, and high speaker points for good performances, clear speaking, and signposting. I prefer to hear more expressive and casual speaking over debate jargon.