Tabroom.com

2021 Lumos May Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Saakshi Challa Spark Scholars

Brasen Chi Lumos Debate Institute 2

Andrea Chow Lumos Debate Institute 5

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 4:25 AM PDT

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

Update for NPDI

It's been a long time since I debated/judged/coached on the circuit. I can't follow spreading like I used to. Please slow down a tad (especially if I look visibly confused) and explain stuff thoroughly.

Prefs cheat sheet:

1: fast, technical debate. good K debate (not pomo).

2: policy/LARP. good T debate.

3: phil. theory. lay/trad debate.

4: K (pomo).

S: tricks.

Background:

Andrea, she/they. La Reina HS & Yale. Earth & Planetary Science major.
Include me on the email chain andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
I have debated and coached for 10 years now - 7 of which were circuit LD & policy in SoCal and 3 years of lay parli in New Haven. Also dabbled in speech & slam poetry - so I have a soft spot for performance... take from that what you will...
I was coached by Leo Kim. I understand debate very similarly to him, but not exactly the same. Anything not answered in my paradigm can be answered in his.
I was a K debater and am most familiar with set col & fem. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and go stupid. I think K's need to have some alt or offense or something or at least have an outstanding defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Miscellaneous notes:

Ways to improve your speaks: emailing me a picture of your flow after the round (and it's a good flow) (tell me you are planning I do this so I can look at your flows before submitting my ballot), telling me to read a specific piece of evidence (and it's good evidence), making puns or jokes (and they're funny)
NON-CIRCUIT DEBATERS: I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed," then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
If your opponent asks you not to spread, you better not spread!!!
If your opponent reads tricks, you can respond by saying "silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" and that will be a sufficient response for me.
Include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of identity-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide. For example, reading set col pain narratives cause you're thirsty for a ballot is kind of hard to listen to. When you read these positions, ask yourself - how are you showing up for these communities outside of the round? Are you kind to other marginalized debaters? Do you donate to mutual aid funds with your resources? What books and sources do you read to learn more about the arguments, even when it doesn't benefit your case? The consequence of ignoring this is an L-25. If you are confused, ask before the round.
If you are a circuit/varsity debater, and you are debating a traditional/novice debater, and you do some ridiculous behavior, act rude and condescending, spread them out, read 6 off, use tons of jargon, push them to disclose, etc., you will also receive an L-25. I have no qualms about judge intervention in this respect. I'm so sick of watching these types of rounds. You probably don't deserve to win anyway if you have to revert to these strategies; it's so embarrassing. Practice kindness.
Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
I flow primarily from your mouth and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics.
Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am

FOR LD:

I'm a good judge for you if:

You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability and try to adjudicate fairly.
You read a critical affirmative.
You mostly go for critical arguments.
Your positions are creative and entertaining.
You like fast, technical debate.
You display a ton of personality in your debates.
You are great at the topicality debate.
You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

You read an affirmative.
You negate the affirmative.
You default to generic negative strategies.
You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

You assume I am following along with the speech doc as you go.
You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique, so you don't have to explain it thoroughly.
You're bad at debating the critique.
You don't warrant your arguments.
You expect high speaker points in every debate unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
You like satire.
You go for tricks.
You think of human suffering as a tool to help you win the ballot.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc., arguments.
You think death is good.
You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
You speak unclearly.
Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
You're disrespectful to your opponents.
Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Maximilian Dittgen Lumos Debate Institute 4

Last changed on Fri January 28, 2022 at 1:13 PM EDT

Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks

Please time/record yourselves and each other

Email: maximilian.dittgen@gmail.com

Hunter '21

Hi, I'm Max! I did four years of LD in high school, reaching a few bid rounds and attending NCFLs twice.

It's been a bit since I've last heard spreading so please start at 70%ish and work your way up from there.

I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. The online format makes it pretty hard to catch blippy arguments. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.

I mainly read Idpol Ks in high school (setcol and abolition), but when reading a K to me make sure link, alt, and impact are all very clearly explained in the 2N. I don't necessarily know what your K means--I like brief (~15-45 seconds) overviews (plural!) on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense. I like unorthodox alts if they make sense in the context of the K and will reward them with higher speaks if they're good.

Update after Ridge: I'm open to hearing disclosure theory, but my threshold for voting for it will increase as the violation becomes less egregious. If you forego substance debate for a disclosure theory shell, either explain your voters extremely well, or make sure there's a legitimate abuse story.

Update for Big Lex and Columbia: Although I've never competed in PF, I have been teaching it to 5-10th graders for two years--please don't feel like you need to adapt for me and I'll try to evaluate your arguments as fairly as possible! However, I don't have any topic knowledge, so please be a bit patient with topic-specific knowledge and acronyms.

Update after Big Lex: I won't vote on explicit counterplans in PF--however, I believe that if the neg side proves an alternative to legalizing drugs that is happening or has a possibility of happening in the status quo solves case and avoids disadvantages, I'll vote on it

Julie Durning Waring School

Alex Ellerstein Lumos Debate Institute 1

Serena Field Lumos Debate Institute 4

Camille Gimbrere Waring School

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 8:51 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Cam (He/They) and I'm the captain of the Waring Debate Team from Beverly, MA. I'm a senior and have been debating since my freshman year.

I come into the round with a fair assumption that you are following NSDA code of conduct rules. Essentially, be respectful and attentive. If you are offensive in any way in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, etc., I'll give you a loss, 24s, report you to tabroom and contact your coach.

Just because I'm also a debater doesn't mean you should disregard the premise of public forum: that every round should be comprehensible to everyone. Public forum is meant to be accessible, and when it's filled with jargon and spreading, the round is thus made inaccessible and the premise is defeated.

Specifics

-Spreading is a no-go in my book. PF was formed as a direct response to it, and to how arguments and research got lost in rheotoric and speed. In PF we don't spread, we make our rounds accessible. If you have any questions about speed, please talk to me.

-I will not vote for one team just because they have more ink on the flow. I'm not tech>truth or truth>tech, debate is about a balance of them both. Debate is evidence and rhetoric, not one or the other. I'm tabula-rasa, as each round should be.

-Use your knowledge of the topic. Trust yourself, trust your partner. You know your stuff, now let me know that you know. As my coach says, use the Kansas Rule of Three: "tell me what you're going to tell me, tell me and tell me that you told me." In short, use off-time roadmaps and signpost. Please sign-post, tell me where you're going. If I don't know this, I won't know where to go on my flow and the ink will get messy.

-In terms of taglines...don't expect me to remember who Jones18 is in your summary, when you brought the card up once in your case. Explain your link-chain, don't simply name drop evidence. Otherwise, I'll be focusing on trying to find out who Jones18 is, and not on your arguments. You want me to pay attention to your arguments. That's why we're here, isn't it?

-Cross fires are for your own sake. I will not flow them. If your opponent makes a concession in cross, bring it up in your speeches if you want me to consider it on my flow. If I look like I'm ignorning you during cross, I'm not, I'm tracking things on my flow and trying to figure out elements that I'm confused about.

-Please me to evidence exchanges cam.gimbrere@gmail.com

If you have any questions, please ask me! If there is anything that I can to to make this round more accessible for you, please let me know. Post-round, if you have any questions, or believe that I made the wrong choice, I am open to conversation. PLEASE talk to me!

And for real, have fun. I know this is super stressful and we often don't want to wake up at 5am on a Saturday to get a van to a tournament to spend all day as anxious wrecks drinking too much coffee, to get home late, but we can make the best of it :)

Joshua Hansen Lumos Debate Institute 5

Deion Hawkins Lumos Debate Institute 1 None

Tori Hoge Lumos Debate Institute 1

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 7:59 AM PDT

TLDR;

I like K’s; i believe they have an important place in debate when done right. Don’t be mean. You do you honestly. Read anything and warrant it well, I’ll probably vote for it.

About Me

pronouns: she/her

I am a junior at Stanford.

put me on the email chain: torihoge@stanford.edu

events i have competed in from most frequently to least: policy, ld, parli, pofo, congress, impromptu (at heart, i am a policy kid)

I coach nationally all levels of policy, LD, and public forum. Do with that what you will.

PET PEEVES:

1. is everybody ready. Say is anyone not ready and begin 2. my timer starts now. Just hit start 3. (for online debate) please turn your camera on when you are speaking 4. don't decide your roadmap while you are talking. at least sound certain of what order you are going in

IMPORTANT READ:

If there is anything I can do to accommodate your needs, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Do not read a K just because you saw I like k’s. Do not use other’s oppression for a ballot. This is not okay. You must be well versed in the literature and have a genuine understanding and care for the argument you read, or don’t bother. I don’t like performative activism or reading things just for a ballot. I would rather do a lot of things than watch a bad k debate. If k’s are your thing and you are knowledgeable, then go for it, it’s my favorite kind of debate.
Also include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of racial/settler/ableist/anti-queer/gender-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide.
My philosophy: if you can explain a very complex topic in simple enough words to explain to a grandparent, then you are a very good debater
If you do anything of the -ists or -ics (think racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) you will receive an L-25
email me before or after if you wanna talk about literally anything or if you have any questions about my paradigm or about the round

I’m a great judge for you if:

you like k debate or read mostly critical arguments
you like technical, high speed debate
you have fun, quirky arguments that demonstrate a lot of personality
you are amazing at T
you have a well-researched stock case

K’s

I was a k debater in high school. This is not an invitation to read any k ever. I do not know or understand the premise of every single k that exists. For reference k’s I have debated are neolib/cap, fem ir, queer ir, security, imperialism, setcol, and speaking for others. At least, that is what I can remember off the top of my head. Even if you are reading a k that I have read, explain it and warrant it as if I have no idea what is going on. K’s need some alt or a very good explanation of why defense is enough and why you don’t need one. K’s need a specific link otherwise they don’t work. What you’re talking about may be important, but if it does not link, then it is not part of the conversation.

Nontopical/K-affs

I don’t really care if they are in the direction of the topic or not. I think that it is stupid that some judges are like at least run a K in the direction of the affirmative, like no that’s quite literally not the point of k-affs. Also, I read my fair share of k-affs in high school primarily fem killjoy and open borders. I am ok with k-affs, but again do not just read them for a ballot, and do them right.

Topicality (not theory)

I like (and can even love) topicality debates when they are done right. However, if T is not your forte, DO NOT RUN IT IN FRONT OF ME. I despise bad T debates.

Theory (distinct from topicality)

Sometimes can be justified, but it has never been a voting issue for me. Run it if you want, but it better be warranted.

CPs

I think they’re great for stock debate. I think they help generate offense. However, I need a very clear explanation of why the perm cannot work, or else I am prompted to vote on the perm. I default to the perm if the explanation does not make sense, if I do not follow, or if it is contradictory. Perm work here is very important for me. Also this should be obvious but I’m putting it in because I see it wayyyyy too many times. YOUR DA SHOULD NOT LINK TO THE CP. that’s the point of a cp.

DAs

Also good for stock debate. Warrant well. Connect to a terminal impact. I think that they need some sort of CP or K with them.

CHSSA/Lay debate

I really don’t care what the “rules” are or whatever the handbook says. If your only strategy is to complain that they are cheating or aren’t following the rules, then get better at debate: learn how to debate substance.
Don’t try any mind tricks. I am flowing. I know when your opponent dropped something or when they did not. Do not claim they dropped something when they did not.

I was very heavily influenced by Andrea Chow. Andrea is the goat and was also my partner in high school. Check out her paradigm for more context as I generally agree with all of her philosophies.

Enya Kamadolli Spark Scholars

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:31 AM EDT

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

Joshua Lim Spark Scholars

Catherine Liu Lumos Debate Institute 6

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 11:21 AM CDT

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

Tech > truth
I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.

I will not evaluate tricks.

Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
I like clear judge instruction.

Syon Mansur Lumos Debate Institute 3

Sivapriya Marimuthu Lumos Debate Institute 4

Dhruv Patel Lumos Debate Institute 5

Wasan Rafat Spark Scholars

Sara Saloum Lumos Debate Institute 4

Clayton Seibel Lumos Debate Institute 7 None

Jane Shen Lumos Debate Institute 2

Prisha Singh Lumos Debate Institute 3 None

Victoria Smithson Lumos Debate Institute 2 None

Noya Stessel Spark Scholars

Last changed on Sat October 23, 2021 at 3:56 AM EDT

she/her

I'm a current PF debater at Newton South.

You can talk fast but don't spread or else I won't flow what you say and don't start off a speech really quickly. If you run theory or spread I'll drop you. Don't say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. If you have to provide a trigger warning then maybe try to not run it or at least have a backup case.

If you go too long over time for speeches I'm either going to not flow what you say or just not listen.

Cross: I pay attention to crosses but don't flow them. Be nice. If something important is brought up say it again in a speech or else I won't remember it.

Rebuttal: A logic rebuttal or logic responses are totally fine. If your frontlines are going to be "this doesn't make sense, they don't warrant this, no card or evidence" most times I'm not going to flow it because if it really doesn't make sense I won't count it in general. I like overviews and I think they are very helpful in the round. Don't just read blocks from your block file, and try to implicate every block. Don't card dump.

Summary: Please collapse on one argument although I'm a flow judge, still create a narrative and story for your side. If you say something in final focus that was unextended during summary, I will not flow it. The same goes for new responses after first summary.

Final focus: You can bring up a new weighing mechanism but again, no new responses

Off-time road maps are fine, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't signpost.

I might look at some cards at the end of the round if there is a debate about specific evidence or how important it is.

For me probability and urgency weighing are the most important. You don't need to weigh off of scope, it just takes away from your time, and I know when a number is bigger than another. At the end of the day, I would like for it to be pretty easy for me to vote for someone and not do much work so please weigh, and if possible try to meta weigh.

If you make a one direction reference I will give you 0.5 - 1.5 extra speaker points depending on how good it is.

Also just because one team is second speaking, doesn't mean they have the last words. I disclose unless I'm told otherwise. You can be sarcastic, or make funny jokes, it makes the debate more fun for everyone.

Good luck!!

Nandini Talwar Lumos Debate Institute 7 None

Donny Tou Spark Scholars

Last changed on Sun May 16, 2021 at 9:48 AM EDT

Hi! I'm a senior at Newton South and a third-year PF debater. My most distinguished accomplishment is placing last out of (I think) 8 teams at a local Big Questions Debate event.

Overall:

The most important thing is to be nice and respectful to each other. If you're mean, I'll be sad.

I appreciate smart debating. For example, don't read 10 responses to a contention that's 100 words. Also, if you're word efficient but speak slowly, I value that more than speaking really quickly but having a lot of filler words.

Example of smart debating: implicating a dropped response on one contention as terminal defense on another contention later in the round. Do things like that!

IMPLICATE RESPONSES AND WEIGH TURNS

Lay [----------*-] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth

General:

My least favorite thing is unwarranted claims. Do not abandon logic. Even if you extend a warrant in rebuttal in summary, it must be in final focus too. Don't make assertions without warranting them.

The flow is still important to me, so make sure you don't drop anything important.

Make sure you implicate arguments the way you want to me understand them. If you don't make a connection for me, I won't make it for you.

Make sure you have a narrative that you extend through summary and final focus (second rebuttal is a good place to explain your narrative too).

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine, and I will only call for evidence if someone tells me to.

**I also think that you can find evidence for a lot of things that aren't true, so when you read evidence you must warrant it**.

Speed:

I'm good with speed, but that doesn't mean you should speak quickly. I value the quality of argument over the quantity of them, so if you're speaking quickly to get a lot down on the flow, it's better to speak slower and go for fewer but more fleshed out argument.

Weighing:

Please do it. At the end of the round, you probably won't be winning every single argument, so weighing makes my job easier and will probably make you happier with my decision.

Second Rebuttal:

Frontline all offense (link+impact turns, dis-ads, offensive overviews). You don't need to respond to defense, but it can be very strategic to do so in rebuttal.

Summary/Final Focus:

Collapse in summary and convince me why that argument is the most important one. Final focus should mirror summary, with the only exception being that first final focus can have defense from rebuttal that wasn't extended in first summary.

Cross:

Ask questions and don't steamroll over each other. I will listen to cross, and if you're all speaking over each other I can't understand.

Speaks:

If you're rude in cross, personally attack your opponents, or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything else offensive, I'll give you low speaks.

Theory:

I think that running theory in PF is extremely exclusive. Not everyone has the resources to learn about these arguments and how to respond to them.

If you want to run it, you must extend it throughout all speeches or else I will think that you are just running the theory to win rounds. You also must define the terms you use, like "role of the ballot" or "permutation." This is not only helpful to your opponents, who may not know what these terms mean, but it's also helpful for me to understand what you're saying.

Jacob Weinstein Lumos Debate Institute 5

Ellen Yang Lumos Debate Institute 2 None

Login to Tabroom

2021 Lumos May Invitational

2021 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

Judges