Tabroom.com

Little Lex in Conjunction With the NYCFL

2021 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Lauren Chin Stuyvesant High School

James Cox Harrison

Louis DiPede La Salle College High School

Fabrice Etienne Harrison

Last changed on Fri September 17, 2021 at 5:36 PM EDT

FSU '25

Bio: Hi everyone, I'm Fabrice and I debated for Fort Lauderdale High School in Florida where I debated in LD for four years. The last two years of my debate career I spent debating on the national circuit where I broke at most of the tournaments that I attend during my Senior Year. Also, my pronouns are he/him/his, and my email is Fabriceetienne830@gmail.com for the email chain.

Basic Stuff:

1. I'm definitely Tech > Truth, which means I have no problem voting for any argument with a warrant and an implication, as long as it isn't repugnant and justifiably makes debate unsafe. If I find an argument to be nonsensical in a way then most likely it does not have a warrant behind it and has no implication in terms of who I voted for in the round.

2. Don't be blatantly anti-black, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. Also, if your opponent calls you out for one of the actions that are listed above I will drop you.

3. I do disclose speaks, but I will only disclose if both debaters are fine to have their speaker points disclose at the end of the round.

4. Please show up during the tech time the tournament has given. If you're ten minutes past the tech time then I will start docking speaks, so show up on time.

5. If you're debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower than usual. The whole point of debate is for people to build their knowledge of the world by learning new arguments from different competitors. This most likely won't happen if you're spreading as fast as can against someone that can't even pick up a word you're saying just because they have no experience in tech debate.

6. For online debate purposes, it is probably best that you record your speeches in case someone gets disconnected or cuts out for a split second during their speech.

Quick Pref Sheet:

K - 1

LARP/T - 2

Framework/ Theory - 3

Tricks - 4

General Stuff:

Ks/K affs: I spend the most time thinking about this type of debate and I feel most comfortable adjudicating it as well. Some authors that I am familiar with when it comes to K debates are Wilderson, Warren, Sexton, Hartman, Baudrillard, and Tuck and Yang. I also have a little bit of knowledge of Eldeman, Beradi, and Lacan. One thing I should note is that just because I like K debate does not mean I am going to hack for you if you read one in front of me, especially if you do not know what you are talking about. Also, I expect that your K has a link or links that are specific to the aff and the alternative should resolve it in some way. Another thing I would like to add is that I am not a big fan of big and long overviews, for that, it is probably better to line by line what is necessary. Now, in terms of K affs, I am fine with whatever you read since this was what I mostly read during my time on the circuit. My only concern with K affs is that you need to make sure that you link your aff to the resolution or why talking about the res is inherently bad. The last thing that I have to add is that if you are reading a non-T aff you need to answer the question of what you do? If that answer is not answered by the end of the 2AR I probably won't vote you up.

LARP (Policy Args): I am fine with LARP since it was the first type of debate that I started with once I was starting to debate on the circuit. Affs with a creative/unique plan text is always fun and if you have one, by all means, run it. The same goes for Neg and any unique CPs and DAs. In these kinds of debates, weighing is gonna be key in front of me.

T/Theory: Obviously if theory is called for because of in-round abuse, don't be afraid to run it. That being said, loading up on as many T shells as possible probably isn't the best strategy for me. This also applies to topicality as well. One thing that I would like to add is that I am not fond of voting for an RVI, but if it is warranted then it fair game.

Framework/Phil: I am fine with this as well even though I barely think about this type of debate at all. Some philosophers that I am familiar with are Kant, Levinas, Deleuze, and Lacan. Philosophers that are not the ones that I listed above might need a little bit more explanation when it comes to articulating their philosophy and how it relates to the res. Also, if this is your style then you need to win why your framework is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense or defense underneath that framing mechanism.

Tricks: This type of debate is probably my weakest place in terms of adjudicating, but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and reading tricks is your thing then just make sure you err on over-explanation and implicating whatever you are reading and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.

Performance: I am cool with this type of debate as well, but you need to make sure why your specific performance relates to the resolution in some way or why talking about the resolution is inherently bad in debate whether you are the affirmation or the negation.

Extra Stuff:

1. Since debate is online again for this season, it would probably be best to not speak as fast as you can from the jump. It would probably be best to start at 50% of your usual speed and then work your way up as the debate goes on so that I can get accustomed to your voice.

2. If you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afro pessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds or shows that you read the argument specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go.

3. If you are accused of an evidence ethics violation/clipping/cross-reading I will stop the debate and confirm with the accuser on whether they want to stake the round on the violation. After that, I will render a decision based on the guilt of the accused.

4. I don’t mind you post rounding me, for that, I believe it makes judges learn sometimes too and it can be good to keep judges accountable. However, if you start to be aggressive while you are post rounding I will meet that energy as well.

Paul Ferraro Boston Latin School

Leah Freedman Needham High School

Last changed on Wed November 30, 2022 at 4:17 PM EDT

hey all!! i'm leah (she/her) and i'm a senior at needham high school in massachusetts. i started doing LD debate in my sophomore year and i'm so excited to be judging! :))

debate is a really great activity, and the main goal of your novice year (and every year after that) should be to learn, and above all, to have fun!!

a couple reminders:

1) please be courteous to your opponent! you can have an aggressive/successful debate without being rude or condescending. if you are rude, your speaks will be docked.

2) if you run any offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.) arguments, i will 100% drop you and give you super low speaks. behavior like this shouldn't be tolerated in the debate space (or anywhere really).

debate logistics:

1) please please please remember to weigh! weighing your and your opponent's arguments makes it way easier to evaluate the round and it will generally always work in your favor.

2) give voting issues and convince me why i should vote for you, especially in your last speech! don't forget to extend arguments you make in your constructive speech/first rebuttal throughout the round. additionally, when extending your arguments, impact them out and tell me why they're important (don't just say "extend this argument" with no warrant whatsoever).

3) you can go as fast or as slow as you want and i will be able to understand what you're saying, but you need to be clear and signpost.

4) cross examination is a really important part of debate that is sometimes overlooked. get your opponent to make concessions, bring strengths from your cx up in rebuttals and leverage significant information from cx! this will get you higher speaks!

5) you can run anything you want as long as you explain it well. it will only go against you to run a super nebulous argument without thoroughly explaining it so that both your opponent and i understand it. that being said, it is unlikely that any of you will be running anything except traditional cases and maybe disads/counterplans.

take a deep breath and relax! debate is a learning experience, and it can be very fun once you focus on that aspect instead of whether you're going to win or lose.

if you have any questions about my paradigm/RFD (reasons for decision/ballot), please email me at lgfreedman0420@gmail.com!

good luck :))!

Aashna Gandhi Lexington HS

Luke Gastelu Byram Hills High School

Christian Han Lexington HS 8 rounds

Catherine Hatziantoniou The Bronx High School Of Science 8 rounds None

Macarena Hesse Harrison None

Gary Ji Stuyvesant High School

Maia Katsnelson Needham High School

Arun Kodumuru Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat September 30, 2023 at 1:19 PM EDT

Send Speech Docs!!

Email: kodumuru@umich.edu

Hello I'm Arun Kodumuru, I'm a Sophomore at the University of Michigan and I debated for 4 years in LD at Lexington Highschool

General Things --

1) If you are unclear and as a result I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear 4 times before I hop on Tetris.

2) tech > truth

3) Don't be bigoted -- I forget which paradigm I got this from but: "don't use words, phrases or slurs outside of your social location," period. You can run arguments that may be on the edgy side but just make sure your opponent is comfortable.

4) I'm good with any speed just maybe go 90% of your normal speed if it's early in the morning.

5) Use good ev ethics -- I agree with Tej Gedela's stances on this

6) More time spent on weighing + explanation is always in your best interest

7) If you're circuit going against a trad debater to get high speaks you can still read your usual circuit strat, but just don't spread.

8) Don't spread if you're going against a traditional debater -- you will get low speaks

9) Debate is tough and if you're feeling down watch this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGOQfLFzJj8

Quick Pref Sheet --

Theory/T - 1

K (Identity) - 2

Phil - 2/3

Tricks - 3

K (High Theory) - 4/5

Policy - 5

Defaults: (These can be altered and changed very easily based on arguments made in the round)

Truth-Testing > Comparative Worlds

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Drop the debater > Drop the argument

No RVIs > RVIs

Presumption Affirms > Presumption Negates

Permissibility Negates > Permissibility Affirms

Layers from highest to lowest: Theory, T, ROB, ethical fwrk

Novice LD --

I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the debate rather than ethos. However, ethos will determine speaker points. I would prefer that you do not spread if your opponent does not spread or read arguments that your opponent may not understand and cannot engage in (i.e theory or tricks). DO NOT read tricks in a novice debate, I will vote on them but you will get 25 speaks.

DO WEIGHING! Most novice debates come down to who weighs there impacts better so please do weighing. Debates without weighing make me sad and are often irresolvable. Clash with each others arguments as much as possible.

COLLAPSE! Don't go for every argument you read in the debate. If you read 3 contentions choose 1 to extend in the 1AR and 2AR and do lots of weighing for why that 1 contention comes first in the debate. You also don't need to extend every card in the aff - extend a few and compare your evidence to theirs.

How to get high speaks: Be respectful, Collapse, Weigh, Clash with your opponents arguments, Use CX strategically.

Varsity LD --

Tricks -- Sure but here are some caveats -- The warrant for an argument starts at 0 and then goes up, with that being said just make sure there's an actual justification for your tricky arguments. Be truthful during cross and I would appreciate it if you formatted your doc so that I could see each argument. Also the roadmap is super important with these debaters so please walk me through the order for each flow and whether I should flow a certain argument on a separate page.

-- If you have analytics pre-written in a constructive speech send it

T/Theory -- Yeah sure go for it. I every read shell from condo to glizzy theory throughout my career. I'll always be technical, but my threshold for reasonability also decreases with the frivolity of the shell. Structure your shell and make sure I know what I'm voting on. Make sure to do lots of framing and weighing for different impacts in the round so that I can judge the round off the flow.

-- Don't read disclosure against traditional debaters, I'll still vote on it, but your speaks won't be lookin too hot.

K -- K's are dope and I'm always open to them. In debate I primarily ran Mollow and Queerpess as my main K strategies, but I've taken classes on Nietzsche and looked into Berardi. I will say I am a lot more comfortable with the identity side of K debate but I'll evaluate your wacky K's as well. Don't spend five minutes on the overview about your theory, I would much more appreciate if you do the explanation along the line by line. Also framing is a huge part of these debates, just make sure I know what your model's orientation looks like.

-- If you're reading a reps K please proactively explain why I should drop the other debater/whatever your impact is -- "that's a voting issue" isn't a warrant.

K affs -- Read them, go for it, I don't care if you don't implement but explain your model of debate and why it deserves the ballot. That being said I will not evaluate call out arguments or arguments based on out of round violations other than disclosure. Lastly, an explanation for your method is super important -- I need to be able to repeat back to you what it is that the aff does in order for you to get the ballot.

Policy/LARP -- Yeah policy is dope, I just don't have the most experience with this style of debate

-- I live for impact turn debates! -- If you actually understand the turns that you're reading and give me a good explanation of them your speaks will be rewarded handsomely.

Phil -- Philosophy is a very interesting style and I advocate for it because of how specific it is to LD. That being said I understand most of my phil experience in debate was between Util, Kant and Hobbes with a little bit in Virtue Ethics and Hegel. Some of the more abstract philosophies that are read these days are a little harder for me to digest, but with a good explanation of the meta ethic and standard in a round I should be able to understand your argument. I also encourage debaters to cut substantive evidence for the syllogisms of their frameworks -- it just makes the argument a lot stronger.

-- Please enunciate more on your permissibility triggers and provide sufficient explanation for them. I'm not willing to pull the trigger for you for a 1 second trigger you made in the NC.

Dawn Krigstin The Bronx High School Of Science None

Matthew Kupferberg The Bronx High School Of Science 8 rounds None

Adam Langer The Bronx High School Of Science

Krista Lee Brookline High School 8 rounds

Lorelei Lee Walpole High School

Guixiao Li Boston Latin School

Amy Ma Lexington HS

Anuka Manghwani Lexington HS

Daniel McCarthy Walpole High School 8 rounds

Rusem Paul The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:24 AM EDT

(He/Him)

Hi. Call me Rusem. I did LD debate at Bronx Science for 4 years.

Email: paulr@bxscience.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Novice LD:

- I will evaluate framework first. Whatever framework wins will be how I evaluate offense.

- Please have extensions, signpost, and most importantly, weigh comparatively.

- Don't be ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- Have fun!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Varsity LD:

Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate any argument so long as it has a claim, warrant, impact, and isn't blatantly atrocious like racism good. I'll still vote on spark and death good.

Prefs: Overall, do what you do best and I'll try my best to adjudicate. Just because something is ranked lower should not discourage you from reading it. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this.

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 1

Tricks - 2

LARP - 2/3

K - 3

Defaults: comparative worlds, epistemic confidence, presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy different from the status quo, permissibility negates, DTD, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > IRA, T > Theory, yes 1AR theory, no judge kick.

Phil: I love it. This was the main style of debate I did in high school. I'm familiar with most frameworks (Kant, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes, Contracts, Levinas, Rawls, Plato, Rule Util). Make sure to explain your syllogism well. Don't blip past a million buzzwords. I think having a long, well-developed syllogism is better than spamming a bunch of independent reasons to prefer. Phil v Phil debates tend to be more blippy so please go slower on analytics and give top-level framing issues of the framework debate. I think examples of your/your opponent's philosophy in practice are underutilized.

Theory/T: These debates are interesting. Go slower on the interpretation text and provide a warrant for the violation, especially in topicality debates. Spec is cool. Make sure to have definitions in T debates. You should extend paradigm issues but you do not have to extend the warrants if it goes conceded. I recommend having a briteline if you are going for reasonability.

Tricks: These debates can be very funny. I like tricks I have never seen before, phil tricks, and weird skep warrants over dumping a bunch of a prioris and incoherency definitions. I will evaluate every speech so do not read "evaluate the debate after x speech" or "evaluate the theory debate after x speech."

LARP: I find these debates to be the most boring but I like weird counterplans that have a solvency advocate. I'll try my best but you probably do not want me judging a super technical policy debate.

Kritiks: I am most familiar with Cap, Deleuze, and security. Understand your lit base well and explain your theory of power well. Explain why your view of power/morality/the world is true and why I should care about it in the context of this resolution and/or round. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand so avoid using a lot of jargon.
I'll happily vote on a non T aff or a performance aff if it is won on the flow.

Miscellaneous:
- Be nice.
- Don't steal prep. Compiling the doc is prep. Sending is not.
- Send anything prewritten such as blocks/overviews.
- Post-rounding is fine so long as I don't find it to be rude.
- I'll disclose speaks if you ask unless tournament rules say otherwise.
- I most likely will have little to no information about the actual topic lit since I haven't kept up with debate.
- I don't flow CX except for writing down the status of advocacies.

Shimrit Raziel The Bronx High School Of Science 8 rounds

Emily Shang The Bronx High School Of Science

Nora Sissenich The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Thu December 14, 2023 at 7:33 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Nora! I debated LD for Bronx Science for 4 years (graduated this year) and am now at the university of vermont

pronouns: she/her

email: sissenichn@bxscience.edu

TLDR: tech>truth, read whatever works for you, be respectful

My senior year was mostly focused on teaching JVers and I have not thought much about debate since graduating so keep this in mind and if you're a super technical/fast debater, I may not be the judge for you. You should prioritize explaining and implicating every argument you want me to evaluate both for my understanding and for general good debating.

I read a lot of stuff throughout my debate career but mainly Ks and Phil so I'm most interested in and comfortable w evaluating those.

Speed: Please go around 2/3rds (or less) of top speed. It is not in your interest to go faster than that!! I have not listened to spreading in a while and I was never great at understanding top speed spreading anyway. If I have to say slow more than 3x I will start docking speaks.

I'll evaluate everything to the best of my ability but my ability to give you more educational comments/resolve the round clearly will probably decline as I get more unfamiliar with what you're reading.

Don't steal prep - sending the doc is not prep, but compiling it is.

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have!

Shortcut:

1 - common Ks, phil, trad

2-3 - T, Theory, LARP, performance, denser phil

4 - frivolous theory, high theory Ks

Tricks - NOPE! no. strike me pls. I will not evaluate

----

Trad - I am actually so down to judge a traditional round! Just make sure you and your opponent have agreed in advance of the round (you should talk to them when pairings come out, not right before the round starts!)

Phil - I read/am familiar w: kant, util, alienation, hobbes, rawls. I love a good fw debate! I've probably either debated or have surface level knowledge of stuff that's not listed above, but don't depend on that prior knowledge in round (this applies to Ks as well)

Ks - I read/am most familiar w: setcol, cap, security, pessimistic args. I have limited understanding of psycho, baudrillard, deleuze. You need to be explaining your theory of power really well. I will be impressed by tangible/creative explanations and examples, especially for more ambiguous alts/methods. If you decide to read high theory you need to be especially sure to explain it well.

LARP - Go for it I guess. I have no strong feelings here. I am not the best judge for a dense larp round, especially larp v larp. I'm probably not up to date on the topic lit/jargon. WEIGH plssss

T/theory - This knowledge was quickest to leave my brain once I stopped doing debate. If you want me to evaluate it well, slow down, explain and implicate clearly, collapse and keep the debate neat please!

performance/non T affs - I am not super familiar w these but I will still evaluate. Just explain why you're non T. Fair warning I am prob well swayed by a good tva/ssd arg against a non-T aff -- but the keyword there is good.

I will be much more impressed by debaters that prioritize interesting, substantive engagement over a strategy that relies on concessions of blippy args.

---------------this was from when I only judged novices but a lot of it applies regardless of division:---------------

overall:

Be respectful! There is 0 tolerance for behavior that is racist/sexist/ableist, etc.
Beyond that, please don't be rude to your opponent. These are often people you'll be debating against or alongside for most of your debate career -- cultivating a friendly and chill debate community is cool! That being said -- don't let that stop you from being assertive [I esp love to see novices commanding the space, and knowing how to find the balance is part of becoming a good debater]
I'm familiar with both trad and progressive LD
if you have questions OR if something happens, etc and you need to contact me, please email
I don't care if you sit/stand etc -- do what makes you most comfortable
If you have someone spectating they need to ask permission of your opponent too, not just me!! (and if you're debating remember that if you are not comfortable w someone spectating you can always say no!)

biggest reminders for novice rounds:

- voters! tell me why you're winning the round in your final speeches-- you should make it clear

- please weigh your impacts

- signpost! tell me when you're responding to your opponent's framework or contentions, extending your arguments, etc

- in over half of the novice (LD) rounds I've judged, the debate is won/lost on framework. I evaluate framework first so it's really difficult for me to evaluate the round if there is little to no time spent on the FW debate. If you and your opponent have different frameworks, spend some time on framework pls

Mahad Sohail Lexington HS

Andrea Su Boston Latin School 8 rounds None

Anthony The Lexington HS

Kelly Traynor Brookline High School 8 rounds None

Filip Vrancic Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun January 8, 2023 at 9:53 PM EDT

Hi,

I'm Filip. I debated for Lexington Highschool for 4 years in LD.

I qualified for the NDCA in my Junior Year.

My Email is fvrancic@umass.edu, please add me to the chain.

If it is 5 minutes before the round and you are just checking my paradigm there is TLDR at the bottom.

I am more or less open to any arguments you want to make provided they are not racist, sexist, homophobic etc. If any of these arguments are made I will stop the round immediately and give the debater who made that argument/statement a zero and L.

If you are a novice you can skip the following section(up to the evidence ethics section):

That said, my primary experience with debate has been Phil/Policy/Theory. If you are reading some super deep K lit, etc, expect to have to explain it a little better than you would have to to other judges.

Experience(1=I have a lot of experience, 5=I have very limited/no understanding):

Phil - 1

Larp - 1

Theory - 1

Tricks - 2/3

K - 4

High Theory - 4/5

I default to the following layering: Theory>ROB>Framing/Substance

I default to the following paradigm issues: Drop the Debater, Competing interps, No RVIs

Try to avoid making me use my defaults, even if they align with what you are trying to do in the round.

Evidence Ethics

I will also auto drop for an evidence ethics violation(This cuts both ways, if you stake the round on a violation and are wrong I will give you a loss, feel free to make it an argument in round if you are not sure). If you cannot get through the entirety of a card, please say 'cut the card here'. Do not change dates on evidence, plagiarize, etc. I won't be super strict about it, so just don't be blatant, and if you messed up and your opponent asks in CX, tell the truth.

Other important stuff:

CX is binding, anything you say in CX is taken as truth in the round.

Do make arguments that are creative and unorthodox. I think creativity is a very undervalued skill in debate, and will reward it accordingly. I will be sympathetic to the fact that you are taking a risk, and the argument 'Don't vote off this, it doesn't have a card' wont fly. You can leverage the fact that carded evidence is more LIKELY to be correct though, and don't be afraid to do it.

Weigh. Tell me why a certain argument is more important than another one. Just saying that it is is not enough for me.

Finally, don't just extend the AC or NC through when your opponent made responses to the case, and then claim they didn't. I will not be very happy about that.

TLDR; Be reasonable, be creative, weigh, explain your arguments, and make sure both you and your opponent have a good time.

Cynthia Wong The Bronx High School Of Science 8 rounds

Dominique Wu The Bronx High School Of Science

Everest Yang Lexington HS

Last changed on Thu October 12, 2023 at 2:29 PM EDT

Info

Hello, my name is Everest Yang (He/Him), you can call me "Everest" or "Judge"

I am a freshman at UC San Diego and attended Lexington High School. I primarily competed on the national circuit but also have experience on the local circuit ---> Lincoln Douglas: 3 years, Public Forum: 1 Year

Add me on the email chain: everestyang2016@gmail.com

Overview For Novices/Local Tournaments (Scroll down for Varsity):

SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches). I'm cool with any speed as long as you are clear and your opponent is comfortable with it.

Value Criterion/Framework holds the highest layer. I don't care about "value" debates.

Arguments should be extended through the flow. I will not evaluate new responses in the 2NR/2AR.

Use evidence to back up your claim.

Do not use CX to prep- asking good questions will increase your speaks.

Make sure to do WEIGHING in your later speeches and COLLAPSE to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well. I tend to vote for well-warranted/impacted arguments.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc. Don't be a jerk against a Novice, i.e. spreading like crazy, reading Ks/Theory/Tricks.

Overall, I tend to be generous and give good speaker points.
I always disclose the ballot if the tournament allows me to. I will also disclose speaks if both debaters collectively agree.

Overview For Varsity:

Quick Prefs

Theory - 1

Policy - 1/2

Phil - 2

T - 2/3

Friv Theory - 4

Ks - 4/5

Trixs - 5/Strike

Specifics

Tech > Truth

Policy -

This is cool - I feel comfortable evaluating most arguments. Just make sure to do clear weighing, especially in dense LARP v LARP rounds. I like DAs and CPs if warranted well.

Theory -

Defaults: No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD, Fairness, Education

Read any shell you want with real abuse. Go slower and be clear on analytics. Frivolous theory is fine, but I have a lower threshold. Disclosure is a good norm! Condo is also probably good...

Phil -

I'll probably be able to understand the main Philosophers, primarily Kant. That being said, I am fine with whatever you're reading, but it's good to have a clear syllogism and explain the FW clearly

Ks -

I'll do my best to evaluate, but I'm not very familiar with kritiks. I'll probably be better for Policy v K since it makes the most sense to me. K v K and K v Phil can get confusing sometimes, especially when there are conceded conflicting theories of power, so weighing and direct clash is good. Extinction outweighs can beat back most Ks.

Tricks -

I've heard of Aprioris, NIBs, Truth Testing but some of these trix just get way too blippy for me to evaluate comfortably.

Worst case scenario strike me because I don't really understand these arguments too well breh.

Speaks:

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there. I'll boost your speaks if you're funny or do something unique I like.
I will disclose speaks if both debaters collectively agree.

Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round.

Good luck and have fun!!!

Yanwen Zhu Westford Academy None

Login to Tabroom

Little Lex in Conjunction With the NYCFL

2021 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

Judges