Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information

TLDR:

Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.

Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.

Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.

I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)

Larp: 1-3

Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)

Tricks: strike

Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.

Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.

General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.

How I view rounds:

Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)

Reps

T

Theory

K

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.

Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.

K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.

T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.

Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.

1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.

DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.

Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.

Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.

CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.

Long U/V: Go for it.

Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).

30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism

29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.

29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.

28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.

28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.

27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.

27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.

26: You are not nice.

Hi my name is Sophie (Safiya Bande) and I am a senior at Byram Hills.

Pronouns: She/her

A few points to note:

• I don't tolerate any form of discrimination so don't be racist, homophobic, ableist, islamophobic or sexist during round. I will most likely not vote for you and give you really low speaks.

• Make sure to sign post so I know where you are.

• Don't read unwarranted evidence.

• For your novice year especially, I think that you should try to get your points across by speaking slowly and clearly. There is no need to spread.

• Make sure in the end you give me clear reasons on why I should vote for you by focusing on 1-3 main points/args in the end.

• I don't vote on cx, but you should still try and do your best, don't just roll over and die. If you don't do good on cx, it's not the end of the world but make sure your arguments are solid.

• You should time yourself during rounds.

• I know debate is really stressful but ultimately it's a learning activity so just try to have fun and don't be so hard on yourself if you lose a couple of rounds!

• I'll boost your speaks +.02 if you are funny during rounds.

• And please remember not to be rude because I will call you out on it.

• If you have any questions feel free to ask or email me @muhammads24@byramhills.net

Hello, I am Anne-Claire Berg. I am the parent of a Harrison student. Please include me on the email chain: annecberg@yahoo.com.

I am a parent judge that has less experience with debate but I will do my best to vote on the flow. You should still be eloquent and articulate your arguments properly so that I can fully understand and vote off of them. I would like to hear some type of framework debate and weighing.

Please don't go too fast, start a email chain and tell me the order before the speeches. Failing to do so will dock your speaker points. I will vote off of voters that are linked to framework.

See you in round

Hi! I'm Sydney (she/her), and I'm a junior at Byram Hills in NY.

If you have questions, you can reach me at Sydney Black on FB messenger or blacksydney5@gmail.com.

Some general notes and preferences:

- Give overviews and signpost throughout speeches

- WEIGH!!!

- I have a pretty high threshold for extensions. Don't just say what the name of a card is, please explain what it says and its impact. If this is not there it is highly unlikely I will vote on the argument.

- I will always disclose at the end of round. I submit my RFD beforehand so feel free to ask questions but you won't change my decision.

- If your opponent is at a certain level, match that. I will not reward you reading at 300 WPM or 6 offs against a novice: you are just a mean person.

- If you say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc., I will drop you instantly with abysmal speaks.

Most importantly, have fun!

hi! you can use "ben" or "judge"; i'll respond to both. any pronouns are okay

i've done 2 years of policy and 2 years of LD for bronx science '23

add me to the email chain: chenb10@bxscience.edu AND theorderwillbe27off@gmail.com

important

i'll say this a lot below, but be clear. i'm a horrible flower w/poor hearing !!!

also important: i haven't done debate in a while. these quick prefs below are updated accordingly, but i wanted to emphasize i wouldn't recommend running high Ks and theory/kant—treat me as a parent judge that can deal with **some** speed (don't spread) and common args

quick prefs:
1 - LARP
2 - lay, capitalism
3 - If you don't know your strategy
4 - Ks
5 - T, theory, tricks, Kant (DO NOT.)

if you're about to have me as a judge, keep these things in mind

1) funny jokes get you speaker points (literally anything is funny to me). debate is a performance but so many rounds feel like a chore (if i'm judging you at a local tournament, please practice being comfortable and lighthearted with your cards!!!)

2) tech>truth, blank slate

3) won't judge kick default; give me a comparison between squo and plan and tell me in round clearly

4) a former policy debater—not the best judge for theory and kant—i wouldn't run this, especially if your file is packed with that stuff since i don't understand and absolutely can't flow it

5) make comparisons throughout the round, esp. in the rebuttals—i'm usually forgiving if you at least make an effort, but i won't compare worlds without you setting it up

6) i have bad hearing, so be clear, clear, clear, and be respectful to your partner and opponents

7) i'm going to say "clear" if clarity is consistently a problem—the more times you hear clear, the lower your points will be

good luck!

Harrison High School '22

Include me on the email chain please: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

Hey! I'm James Cox (He/Him), and I'm currently a senior at Harrison High School, in Harrison, New York. I primarily compete on the national circuit, but I am also familiar with the traditional debate. If I am judging you, you're likely a novice, in which case below are some things that I'd like to see in the round. If you are a more advanced novice, please don't try to debate "circuit" just because you think I want to see that. I am tech>truth for the most part, but I have 0 tolerance for racism, sexism, etc., and I have no problem dropping someone if an argument is made that is harmful to other bodies within the space.

If you and your opponent are frequently competing on the national circuit, here is the link to Chetan Hertzig's paradigm. I agree with 99 percent of everything said here.

Hertzig's Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

novice rounds:

1. WEIGH. YOUR. IMPACTS. PLEASE. Novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)

2. Signpost! Please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when you're responding to your opponent's.

3. Give voters! Write my ballot for me.

if you have any questions about anything written here, please email me or ask before the round! Debating as a novice can be scary, so I'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs.

I participated in Speech and Debate when I was in high school. I'm excited to be able to help support current high school students in developing their oratorical skills.

For LD debate:

Please be kind and considerate. Engage on the issues of the debate. Focus less on disputes over definitions and more on the substance of the debate. Please remember to carry issues forward throughout the debate.

Good luck!

I debated in high school but it was a different system. While I did act as a judge a few years ago, I am coming back to LD debates.

Please try to articulate clearly, and give pointers (when you are rebutting your opponent). If you are speaking too fast, I may ask you to slow down and enunciate better. Enumerating your points is helpful.

You can send me your cases at: saswatodas@gmail.com

Debating is about honing your power of argumentation, so focus on that. Also, try to keep to your allotted time; I will not count anything you say after your time limit.

Try to have fun in the process, and please be gracious through it all. I wish all of you the best!

TL;DR: run what you're best at! if you just give me clear reasons as to why you deserve the ballot, I'll be happy voting for you! that being said, i'd rather you run a lay case that you understand than some dense tricky phil that you don't understand.

NLD AND JVLD

I don't really think that spreading belongs in NLD and JVLD. It's often exclusionary as debaters in these categories are often inexperienced. I'll ask that you not share your case with me as you should be speaking at a speed that I can understand without reading. I don't flow CX and I won't care about it unless you make me care about it in your speech. Please time yourself xo

Quick Prefs:

Phil: 1 (+.5 speaks if you read something i've never seen before and actually understand it)

Tricks: 1-2 (i'm not the best flower so if you're reading dense tricks i may not be the best judge)

Theory/T: 1-3 (if you're gonna spread through your interps maybe refrain)

Lay/Trad: 2

LARP: 3-4

Identity politics: 4

Pomo: 5

Full paradigm:

Hi! I'm Mia Frishberg

About me: As a debater, I mainly run tricks and phil. I also like theory and have dabbled in idpol (fem killjoy)

things that make me happy: clear ballot stories, weighing, clash, and meme cases

things that make me sad: spreading on/being mean to novices, and LARP v LARP (u can run it but i'll be sad)

And as for my defaults(feel free to change my mind!):

theory is competing interps, drop the argument, no rvi

T/theory> k> substance

presumption affirms

permissibility negates

Specifics:

Phil: As a debater, I dont have one specific favorite phil really. I enjoy butler, kant, hobbes, intuitionism and ethical egoism but can evaluate most philosophies if not all. I don't looove when ppl read some phil ac as a time suck and drop it for 1ar theory BUT i'll evaluate it. And, PLEASE don't run some random phil that you don't understand. Otherwise, have fun with ur phil! i would enjoy a nice, happy phil v. phil round.

Tricks: I will vote off of an apriori if you tell me why it matters. I have experience with blippy tricks and will be happy to vote for them but i HATE blippy spike extensions like "extend the warrant" or extempted spikes in the AC so pls avoid that. Otherwise, i'm not gonna tank your speaks if u fairly win. (THAT DOESNT MEAN 20 APRIORIS IN FRONT OF A NOVICE)

Theory: See my defaults above. That being said, I'm fine evaluating friv theory. AFC is fun and i like it. Like i said in the beginning, i don't like ppl reading phil in the ac just to drop it and read 1ar theory. I'll evaluate it, but again, it makes me sad.

Lay/Trad: Pretty straight forward. If this is what you feel most comfortable doing, i'll evaluate it the same way as anything else. I'd appreciate a claim-warrant-impact structure and clear impact calculus under your framing. Happy debating!

LARP: I dislike this sometimes. Larpers read many cards very fast which makes me a bit sad. Obviously, I'll evaluate this the same way as anything else. You're not gonna win the round with your DA/CP/Plan/etc. if you don't win util/xtinction first tho.

Ks: I enjoy topicality but non-T is fine. I feel like a broken record here but i will evaluate anything. I'm def not the best person for super dense pomo or high theory but if u give me a clear ballot story, go ahead. As for idpol, my threshold for responses may be a bit low so run this if you're confident.

And, good for you for finishing my paradigm. To show that you've finished this, tell me your favorite color before the round starts and i'll give you +0.2 if u do it before your opponent.

Hi friends! I'm a debater and all around cool person.

About me:

I've been doing PF for four years as (mostly) a second speaker at Lexington High School in MA. local and state level. she/her

Debate stuff:

- Keep the round clean. (a) Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddled, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than an arg riddled with conflicting warranting. (b) signpost. (c) collapse in the second half of the round. (d) tell me why I'm voting for you in your final speeches. Make my job as easy as possible!

- Implicate everything: explain the relevance of everything you extend, ie. warrants, impacts, blocks + explain why the arguments your opponents dropped matter so I don't have to do any analysis

- i would advise against spreading. heres an overview of why i think its bad: (a) there's a sizable chance your opponents won't be able to understand you (b) concision is good (c) it can encourage worse argumentation, it’s really hard to listen to a debater dump 30 bad quality turns on their opponent and collapse on the 2 obscure turns they dropped.

- I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory, Ks, disads, pre-fiat args, counterplans, or any other non PF argument you're gonna need to explain it to me in the simplest possible terms.

- I don't time speeches or prep.

- Debate respectfully. If you're unnecessarily patronizing or rude, I'll dock your speaks. I also won't evaluate any discriminatory arguments.

- Have good evidence ethics: your evidence highlighting should be consistent with the intent of your author, avoid paraphrasing in general but have full cut cards readily available if you do paraphrase, etc. I'll call for evidence if you ask me to. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if it didn't exist. im tech>truth unless you say a statistic that is factually incorrect, don't lie.

lastly (a) feel free to ask me any questions before round, (b) i'll disclose and give feedback after round if you want it and the tournament allows, and (c) have a great time!!!

email: mbgordon@outlook.com

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

I am a lay judge.

I am interested in well organized opening arguments supported by good research.  I also would like to hear thoughtful and to the point rebuttals to opponent's contentions/counter arguments. 

General:

To the best of my ability, I judge based on the round that I’m presented with, full stop.

As a high schooler, LD encouraged me to think creatively, and to develop a personal communication style that balanced my strengths and weaknesses. Consequently, I have limited interest in having debaters adapt to my preferences; however, there are several caveats which I describe below.

To be clear, I recognize the value of learning to adjust to different audiences, but my view is that it is more important to encourage high school students to be creative, and to experiment with arguments and oratorical styles. Consequently, as long as the debaters are speaking at a pace that I can understand, and are civil to each other throughout the round, then I have no preset expectations (speed is fine, when necessary, but I cannot keep up with super-fast speakers).

When judging at tournaments, I try to write careful and useful ballots, and those documents naturally reflect my general views about contemporary LD; however, those opinions do not affect my decision-making process (well, I suppose I have unconscious biases like everyone else, but I do my best to keep an open mind).

Caveats:

1. I can’t keep up with superfast speaking – this is not a preference, I simply don’t have the required mental capability - so if you choose to do that, expect low speaker points, and recognize that I may decide the round by flipping a coin.

2. I am not conversant with contemporary LD theory and terminology, so please don’t assume that I know what you mean when you use technical language. Basically, I’m happy to listen to whatever you want to say, just please use plain language so that I can follow your arguments.

3. Related to 2: I have zero patience for arguments which try to preclude the other side from winning based on theoretical or technical grounds.

a. That being said, I do think that some of the resolutions are poorly phrased, and tend to unduly favor one side or the other; in those cases, it’s reasonable to discuss each sides’ respective argumentative burdens. To be clear, however, my starting point is that each side has an equal chance of winning the round, so if you are going to debate burdens, I urge you to be fair and reasonable.

4. With very rare exceptions, I judge purely based on what I hear in the round, so I’m not going to read your cases. Consequently, if you think that precise details like the date, or source of a card are important, make sure to emphasize them verbally so that they get my attention.

Last Thing:

While extensions and elaborations of existing arguments are appropriate in the 2NR, and 2AR, entirely new arguments or pieces of evidence are not.

Hi everyone!!

I'm Theo (he/him/his) and this is my third year debating for Stuyvesant High School ('22) in NYC.

You can reach me at theomoss@gmail.com or Theo Kubovy-Weiss on Facebook.

Some general notes and preferences:

- I'm cool with pretty much any argument type, but my favorites are K debates and Baudrillard is my favorite author (ignore this, novices!).

- Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary will result in me dropping you with 0 speaks.

- Be clear about your arguments and signpost.

- Weigh!! I won't do it for you. Unless it's explicitly stated in round otherwise, I will consider all impacts to be of equal weight and importance.

- I will boost your speaks if you specify your pronouns at the beginning of the round.

- I always disclose at the end of the round and I'll tell you your speaks if you ask.

- Don't argue with me after the round. I submit my RFD before I tell you the results and you being argumentative won't change that. I encourage you to ask questions/ask for advice, though!

- Doesn't matter what category you're in, if your opponent is at a certain level, match that level. I will not be impressed if you go 5 off against a novice's lay case and I'll dock your speaks heavily. Novice year especially (but really debate at any level) is just about practice, experience, and exposure, and all that overwhelming your opponent does is diminish their confidence. Even if you're a novice, don't read stuff you know most novices won't get (i.e. a prioris in a lay round).

------- FOR SCARSDALE ----------

For pretty much all of you, this is either your first tournament or one of your firsts. I know it can be really daunting and stressful going into LD with minimal experience, so really try to keep in mind that debate is just a game. For a lot of people (like myself) it's stressful, competitive, and at times overwhelming, but it *does* get easier with time and even if you lose a round, it's not the end of the world. If anything, losing a round will do more for you as a debater than winning. Take each loss as an opportunity for growth and each win as a congratulations for your hard work—nothing more than that. If there's anything I can do as a judge to make the round any easier or less stressful, please let me know and I'll do my best.

Take a deep breath. You got this!

email me for q's/email chain: audil@andrew.cmu.edu

Hi, I'm Audi Lin, and my pronouns are she/her. I'm a current first-year at Carnegie Mellon University, and graduated from Lexington High School in 2023. I debated LD my novice year, then switched to PF for my sophomore & junior year. A good debate should make everything clear cut where I understand your arguments and how/why it is better than your opponents. If things get messy, don't expect me to completely understand/flow everything you say. Run whatever you want as long as it's not blatantly racist or offensive. I am generally tech>truth but I have a very low threshold for frivolous theory and tricks. Please do not run these arguments if your opponent has no idea what they are, especially if you are novices. Give trigger warnings where appropriate (and air on the side of caution!) and please respect people's pronouns! If you feel unsafe at any time, give me a signal or let me know and I will stop the round immediately.

tl;dr:

- I will vote off the flow, so signpost and line-by-line

- warrant, extend your full link story and impact, implicate, and weigh

- i'd really rather not judge intervene, so make it clear what your argument is

-- for weighing and links, make sure you do the comparative: sure, your impact may be big but explain why it is bigger than your opponents

- I'd rather focus on the debate itself rather than making sure you go over time, so time yourself, and if your opponent goes over time, respectfully let them know

- You can take flex prep but clarifying q's only, from personal experience flex prep that gets super offensive/defensive goes nowhere and is a time suck

- I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen aka don't be rude/snobby

LD:

- Like I said, I did LD my novice year, and mostly ran util and structural violence

- run other arguments at your own risk, but either way: fully explain EVERYTHING

- don't spread, I might be slightly better with talking speed than a normal lay judge but this does not mean you should go 300 words a minute

- collapse, I'd rather you have a solid argument that I fully understand than several blippy arguments that I can't vote off of

PF:

- PF is PF, so please stay topical

- things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then line by line if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- start collapsing in first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

longer version:

- try to preflow before round, I get that it seems tedious but my recommendation is that you have your flow and print several copies of it, so that you don't have to rewrite everything every round

- kinda your average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot :)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis

- once again please weigh weigh weigh

- crossfire shouldn't be extra debating, please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks

- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors. Pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read needs to say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. I may call for evidence, most likely if I think it is misrepresentative.

--- THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD CALL FOR EVERY SINGLE CARD IN THEIR CASE JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHINGS REPRESENTATIVE

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future, and there is a non-zero probability I am wrong (but low probability)

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- speaks start at 28-28.5 and go up or down depending on your speaking and round strat

Feel free to ask me questions after the round, I think its a great way to learn but please don't post round me :)

Hi! My name is Lotem Loeb and I am a first-year college student. I am traditionally a Public Forum debater with four years of experience. During a round, I primarily focus on the flow and your speech (how you articulate arguments, volume, and a strong speaking voice). The most beneficial and important things to do during your speech are:

• Provide brightlines for all major arguments. This clarifies the round and reminds me of your important points.

• Weighing in all speeches (including comparative weighing)! If you do this, I can more easily assess your impacts.

• Extending links throughout the round.

• Cross should not be a continuation of debating, make sure to ask relevant questions and not explicitly further your arguments.

• Please be sure to frontline starting in Second Rebuttal or First Summary.

• Do not under any circumstances make any offensive arguments. I do not tolerate any arguments that come at the expense of any groups or specific individuals and I will dock speaker points. Also, make sure to be respectful of your opponents during round.

• If you use a theory/K I will only vote for you if it is presented well (I would prefer you do not since your opponent may not have experience with such).

If you spread during speeches that is okay, just make sure to emphasize clarity in arguments and enunciate.

You will do great and make sure to have fun!

Email: lotem.loeb@gmail.com

Back when the world was young (or at least I was), I participated in some speech and debate in middle school and high school but I never competed in LD. You should consider me a lay judge.

As such, please make things as easy for me as possible:

• speak slowly and as clearly as you can (no spreading!)

• signpost where you're going and in your rebuttals where in the flow you are

• in your concluding speeches (2NR / 2AR) summarize where we've gotten to in the debate: what are the most important arguments and why, which ones your opponent has conceded to you, what issues remain disputed and on what basis you should win them, and overall why this all means you should win.

I flow using a separate computer from the one I use for Campus and I'm a pretty fast/accurate typist but I may occasionally have to look at the other screen to fix a mistake, so don't be put off or worried that I'm not paying attention if I do that.

I'm inclined to be pretty generous with speaker points but will certainly deduct for meanness, rudeness, discrimination of any kind, or any generally ungracious behavior towards your opponent. (You can be as rude to me as you'd like, if you think that will help!)

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Murno, I use she/her pronouns

I debated LD for 4 years at Harrison High School and I teach at NSD. I debated natcir but i love trad :)

My email is Lizzie.murno@gmail.com

• If you are able to, please do not read util in front me. If you only read util, please strike me. I hate it. I really don't want to hear about how I am going to die regardless of if we affirm or negate. I have been hearing that extinction will happen in debate for 6 years now and I really do not want to hear it anymore. Obviously if you only have access to util because you are a small team or cut all your own prep I will not hold it against you, but if you are able to read a more nuanced argument then please do because I am tired or pummer.

• Time yourself please I HATE cutting people off but I will not flow any args made after the timer. Finish your sentence but be reasonable.

• Tech and Truth? I will default to whoever is winning the argument, even if I don't agree with it or think it's false it's not up to me if it was dropped. HOWEVER, If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate the debate one, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. This also makes me inclined to actually read your evidence, especially when it's a hard decision to make. However, DO NOT RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE.

Prefs

Ks - 1

Non-T performance - 1

Soft Left K/K aff - 1

Theory - 2/3

Phil - 4/5

LARP - 5/6

Tricks - Strike

Ks

Even though I was a K debater, do not run it in front of me just because of that - if you don't know it, I won't like it. I read mostly performance Ks, set col, fem Ks, and cap Ks.

If you are reading a K on the neg against a util aff. DONT ASSUME I WILL JUST REJECT UTIL. You need to read a ROB and/or ROJ and tell me why it comes before util and why util is bad. Do not get mad at me for voting for a bad util aff over a good K if you didnt do the work to tell me why your discussion comes first when your opponent tells me why util comes first.

If you have me and aren't a K debater I would love it if you had some soft left K aff (basically implementation of the resolution but impact to structural violence, or a ROB about equality. Just. Not. Util.)

Larp

Larp can be done well, but I will just never get on the Util bandwagon - if you win it I'll vote on it, but I certainly will not be happy.

I will not default to util. Read a framework (I have seen this way too many times).

T/Theory

I read Ks but that doesn't mean that no K is abusive. Give me a good TVA, one that is specific to the K (if you don't have one because they didn't disclose, tell me that). Theory can be really interesting to me if you know what you are doing and I enjoy a good extension of each part.

T against non T affs should be more nuanced. I generally prefer topic theory over T-FW, and I think that if you are reading T-FW there should be a good TVA with a solvency advocate. I also think that you should though some impact turns/critical reasons being non t is bad. in the shell.

Disclosure, PICs bad, condo, rob spec, etc - I think that these arguments need to have a clear abuse story. If you are saying "I can't engage" but are clearly engaging you need to tell me "theory is about norm setting, not what you do it's what you justify". On the other hand, I do appreciate theory and t as an out in a very challenging round substantively.

Phil

I am a philosophy major which means that if you read bad philosophy to me (i.e. you are unable to analytically justify your fw and rely on cards that make no sense) then I will definitely vote you down. I do not understand the way that a lot of people read phil in LD because you don't have a set of premises and a conclusion.

For Novice LD:

- Novice debate is really challenging in the beginning so don't worry! I will try to help as much as a can with my reason for decision (RFD). Ask me any questions you have after the round.

- Feel free to run any argument you are comfortable with as long as it is explained, links to the winning framework, etc, I will probably vote for it.

- Novice rounds are usually messy (It is okay, you are new!), just try to explain all of your arguments, why that means you win, and how you link to the winning framework.

- I want clear voting issues at the end or during your speech.

- I want some big picture arguments explaining what the neg/aff world's would look like (especially in util debates.)

-Overall, have fun with it and try your best!

Hello there, I am Bryan (he/him). I am a senior and debate LD for Scarsdale High School on the national circuit.

If you have any questions/concerns before round, feel free to contact me at bryan7shi@gmail.com. ????

Add me to the email chain if there is one.

novice ld

Read whatever you want as long as you are not being mean, offensive, or exclusionary. Ultimately, you are the debater, so you do you. I will give feedback after each round and encourage you to ask questions.

Arguments should consist of a claim, warrant, and impact; be extended throughout all the speeches; and weighed. Doing all of these things will massively increase the probability that you win the round.

Give me a clear route to the ballot. In other words, make sure you provide a summary of the arguments that win you the debate, specifically at the end of the 2nr/2ar. This will greatly increase your chances of winning the round, since I will have a clear picture of how the round breaks down. Make it crystal clear which arguments come first, outweigh, have the largest impact, etc. Otherwise, I will be mildly irritated sorting through arguments for you.

Give me the order of your speech in the form of an off-time roadmap or summary, otherwise I will be mildly irritated having to figure out where to flow your arguments. Signpost your arguments.

Finally, I love a spicy in-depth framework debate.

speaks

I tend to be fairly generous with speaker points. Being funny and making clever arguments will reward you with higher speaks. Being mean or cheating will result in lower speaks. In general, debating to the best of your ability will yield high speaks.

Organizing your arguments in a coherent and persuasive manner will increase your speaks.

SHS' 22

email: caroline3shi@gmail.com

facebook: Caroline Shi

Hi! I'm Caroline, I debate for Scarsdale High School, primarily on the national circuit. If you have any questions before the round, email or message me on FB

for novice debate:

[1] WEIGH!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!

[2] If you wish to bring progressive debate into the round, please make sure your opponent is okay with it beforehand. That being said, don't just read progressive arguments for the ballot if you don't understand them. I will be very sad, and your speaks will reflect that

general:

I'm not the best at flowing, and this whole online thing makes it a bit harder, so please be clear and slow down on taglines/interps

Extensions need warrants, but if your opponent did not spend that much time on your argument/dropped it, you do not need to spend that much time extending it

Tech > truth, but there needs to be a warrant. Run what you want*; I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible/evaluate your arguments to the best of my ability, except for a few cases that I will list below:

- if something is marked as an independent voter, but not warranted as to why it is an independent voter/in general in the speech it is introduced, I probably will not evaluate it how you want me to (as in, I will not vote on it)

- I won't vote on personal attacks based on out of round incidents such as a person's clothing, appearance, mannerisms, etc., with the exception of disclosure w/ screenshots

- don't cheat/miscut evidence

if no arguments are made for or against these, here are my defaults (although I will be pretty sad if I have to use them):

- fairness and education are voters

- comparative worlds

- DTA, reasonability, no RVIs on theory

- DTD, competing interps, no RVIs on T

- presumption/permissibility negate

- 1ar theory legit

*i'm fine with most arguments, but I would highly recommend against reading tricks in front of me (strike or pref low), since I do not believe I am well-equipped to judge them. If you still decide to read tricks in front of me after reading this, don't be sketchy, go slow, and at least hint at its application in the first speech it's introduced in.

*LARP with caution: I'm probably fine to judge basic DA/CP/plan AFF strats, but I'm not familiar with advanced LARP jargon/super complicated LARP strats.

addendum: please adapt to novice/traditional debaters as best as you can. your speaks will thank you for this :)

note: if you felt uncomfortable in the round because of something I did/your opponent did, please contact me after the round

Please come to round early. I will be very unhappy if you show up in the last 5 minutes, and even more unhappy if you show up right before the round starts.

+0.3 speaks if you bring me a bag of (lays<3) chips before round

TIME YOURSELVES

Scarsdale High School ‘23

She/her

Email: katherine3shi@gmail.com (If there’s an email chain, add me to it)

Hello, I’m Katherine! I have debated for Scarsdale High School for three years and am currently in my senior year of high school.

(Yes you can call me Katherine, you don't have to call me judge)

Note for online debate: Please locally record your speeches so that if there are any tech issues they can be resolved. I will not let people redo their speeches.

If I'm judging JV, I'm fine with all styles (k/larp/tricks/theory/phil), provided you give good judge instruction and have a claim, warrant, and impact, novice points apply, and start slow then get faster when spreading. I don't flow off docs and I do not know the topic.

Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (Some of these are taken from Vivian Guo’s paradigm):

1. WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them

2. EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument

3. Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading

4. I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round

5. If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best

6. Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech

7. If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook

8. As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that

9. If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1

If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.

Scarsdale High School ‘23

he/him

Email: jadentepper@gmail.com (If there’s an email chain, add me to it please)

Hello, I’m Jaden Tepper. I have debated for Scarsdale High School for four years and am currently in my senior year of high school. (You can call me Jaden, you don't have to call me judge).

Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (All of these have been taken from Katherine Shi):

1. WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them

2. EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument

3. Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading

4. I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round

5. If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best

6. Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech

7. If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook

8. As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that

9. If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1

If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.

Hey! I'm Sebastian - he/him

Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (All of these have been taken from Katherine Shi):

1. WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them

2. EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument

3. Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading

4. I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round - if you make an independent voter that is not well warranted please do not collapse to it. It is fine strategically to have that argument, but I tend to err on the side of truth when it comes to dropping someone for conduct that is racist, homophobic, sexist - it is not a good strategic out if it isn't well warranted and is not conceded

5. If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best

6. Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech

7. If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook

8. As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that

9. If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1

If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.

Hi, I'm Tiffany! My pronouns are she/her/hers. I debate LD at Bronx Science

Thank you for taking the time to read this :)

Preferences:

- please add me to the email chain: wangt5@bxscience.edu

- please signpost: it makes it easier for me to flow the round

- warrant & weigh: explain why your contentions are logically sound, and then compare their importance to your opponents

Miscellaneous:

- you will absolutely be dropped and your speaker points will tank if you say anything that is racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

- feel free to ask me questions before/after round and have fun!

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

Hi! My name's Maddy and I'm a senior at Byram Hills, I competed in LD for three years and PF for one too --

my fb is maddy whelley and my email is whelleym23@byramhills.net if you have any questions feel free to ask

assuming ur a novice -- please give me some sort of signposting/overview so I know where you are on the flow and please just don't be a bad person in round and speak clearly bc online makes it a little harder to hear sometimes but besides that do what u want

update: haven't changed this paradigm since junior year, here's a bear

ʕ•́ᴥ•̀ʔ
enjoy :D