Lexington Winter Invitational
2022 — NSDA Campus, MA/US
Novice LD Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi, I'm Ariv Ahuja (He/Him). I'm a fourth-year senior debater for Lexington High school. I compete on the national and local debate circuits.
Email: 23stu077@lexingtonma.org
Novices
You are responsible to time your and your opponent's speeches.
Give me an off-time road map before your speeches.
Arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact. Implicate all your arguments and why they matter.
I'm cool with speed if your opponent is cool with it. Just make sure you're speaking clearly.
In your final speeches make sure you weigh and collapse. Think about the round in terms of offense and defense. Also, try to clearly frame the round towards the end - tell me why you won.
Be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc.
Preferably don't read stuff you don't understand.
I strongly discourage reading Ks/Theory/Tricks etc. against novices. If it's a trick or theory shell that is clearly explained I might vote on it, but my threshold for responses on these will be pretty low.
Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.
I will disclose the ballot and speaks if you ask and the tournament allows.
JV
In short, I will evaluate whatever arguments are in the round with an open mind. Although I might not be familiar with the Phil or Kritikal literature you running so do your best to explain it. I recommend just reading what your comfortable with.
The quick prefs are in terms of how good I am at evaluating those arguments
Quick Prefs:
Theory - 1
I read a lot of disclosure and ran all sorts of theory arguments, I think friv is ok but it's obviously harder to win.
Trix - 1
I also read a decent amount of these. Make sure there warranted and extended and I'll probably vote on it.
Policy - 1
Debated a lot of policy, so I am pretty familiar with these.
Phil - 3
I probably won't understand much other than Kant, although I'll try my best.
K - 3
I read a couple of K's the ones I'm most comfortable with are Abelism and Physco. I also understand the generic K's, Set Col, Security, Afropess etc.
Speaks
Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.
Hi everyone! My name is Marina and I'm a first-year parent judge. That being said, I'm still fairly new to the activity and would appreciate if you guys spoke slowly and clearly (no spreading please), give clear voting points, and ran strictly traditional/lay arguments. Please remember to be respectful towards your opponents.
Have fun and good luck!
Ahmed Babaeer (He/Him/His)
12th-grade LD and Policy 3-year debater at Lexington High School.
Email: Houmony1@gmail.com
Last Updated: 9/16/22
I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots, however, I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity.
I evaluate debates systematically. I begin by attempting to discern the priority of the various layers of arguments presented, examples include frameworks or weighing arguments which specify which types of impacts matter, a theory argument, a Kritik, etc. Once I have determined the priority of layers, I will then proceed to evaluate the different arguments on each layer, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, and whatever else is necessary to find an adequate resolution to the debate.
I greatly enjoy ethical framework debates. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.
Don't forget to weigh under your framework.
Thanks, and always make sure to have fun!
Princeton Update: I haven't been involved with the activity for a while now. Please go about 75% speed and try to be clear. Don't assume I know about the topic.
What's up I'm Vedansh Chauhan - I debated for four years at Princeton High School and qualified for the TOC my senior year. Email: vedanshchauhan17@gmail.com
Some shortcuts:
1 - T/Theory
2 - Phil/Tricks
3 - LARP
4 - K
4 - Performance
Disclosure + Friv Theory is cool, I'll be more receptive to reasonability if the shell is egregious.
Regardless of my preferences, read whatever you want and do your thing, I shouldn't have to restrict you from reading a position because of my ideologies. I'll do my best to evaluate every argument that has a warrant.
Tech > Truth and I'll only evaluate args that I have on my flow.
Don't make any offensive arguments otherwise your speaks are going to get tanked
Defaults:
Truth-Testing > Comparative Worlds
Competing Interps > Reasonability
Drop the Debater > Drop the Argument
No RVIs > RVIs
Presumption Negates > Presumption Affirms
Permissibility Negates > Permissibility Affirms
Layers from Highest to Lowest: T, Theory, ROB
Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty
CX Is Binding > Not Binding
Stuff to get high speaks:
1) Be funny
2) Bring me food/snacks and water.
3) Be passionate about what you read
Updated 12.04.2021
TLDR
Background: Been judging for a long time, I'm currently a science teacher who judges sporadically during this time.
How I determine the winner: I will pick the strongest argument a round for that to determine the winner. It could come from any theory, k, or traditional style. If you are going to run a k or theory, do it well and be confident in that because I am not the most familiar in them. I strongly prefer traditional debate (like if you run traditional debate, I will appreciate 10 times more), but do what you feel will help you win the round. (More in this in the long version).
Weighing and voting issues: give me them so I know what you believe are the things I should value highly in the round. It will help you win.
Speed: speak clearly and if you speak too fast after me telling you to slow down 3 times, I will likely stop flowing. I judge what I flow, so that could cost you the round.
Respect: Be respectful of everyone.
GOOD LUCK!
LONG VERSION
Basic Information About Me:
I am a teacher and I have been judging in the circuit since I was a junior in high school for Novices, and then during my time in college I have judged here and there (so about 7 years). Most of my judging experience does come from 6 years ago, so I am not an expert in the nuances of debate.
Debate Style/Technique/Arguments
I know and understand the fundamentals of debate. Like don't go new in the 2, I know what is a turns is, what are extensions are, etc. I am aware of theory and k-shells, but don't fully understand the nuances in them. If you are going to run these things on me, I would expect that you know what you're doing and that you could "guide" me through the round as to why you're running them and why you believe that using them would help you win. I won't know if you're doing them correctly, so I am assuming that you are. If I suspect that it was not done well, then I probs won't pick you. With that being said, I do like when there is some type of traditional debate, but run what you feel most confident in or what your strongest arguments are.
I feel most comfortable and confident judging traditional style debate. It's fun for me, and if you want the best decision where I can fully defend my reasoning for decision forever, you should have a traditional style round. One thing that I do love is solvency. Please explain to me how your side solves best.
That brings me to my main point, I am not going to nitpick your "technique" in the round. However, I will nitpick the strength and delivery of your argument. I vote for whatever argument(s) hold(s) the most ground in the round. If your main argument is not the strongest argument in the round or you just weren't good at expressing why it should be, don't expect to win. Were you convincing enough? Was there a lot of evidence to support that argument? That is what I mean by strength and delivery.
Weighing and Voting Issues
Weighing and voting issues are IMPERATIVE to me. Since I do base my vote on what is the strongest argument in the round, weighing and voting issues tell me that from your perspective. We all have different experiences and backgrounds because of that, we are going to value things differently. I might value an environmental or education argument highly because of my interests and passions, but you may value a criminal justice or economic argument highly because of whatever reason. Weighing and voting issues tell me as a judge what to value and sort of how to think. When you weigh and give me voting issues, I will then look at the rest of my flow and figure out how that compares to your competitor's arguments. If you don't weigh or give me voting issues, then I will do that for you and it might not be in your best interest because it might cost you the round due to the strength of your arguments. You and I could think that your strongest arguments were 2 separate arguments and that's what could cost you the round.
Speed
We are in a pandemic and we are doing all of this virtually. With that we have to deal with potential complications of technology and wifi, and those barriers that prevent us from seeing each other in person. For that reason, I care a lot if you enunciate your words and speak clearly. I am comfortable with most speeds, but would prefer if you build up to it and don't go super sonic speed. I judge what I flow. If you are speaking too fast and/or you aren't clear, then that will be a problem. If you are speaking too fast for my comfort, I will say "Clear" or "Slow down". I expect you to slow down and stay at that speed for a little while. If I do say "clear" or "slow down" 3 times in the round, and you don't fix/adjust your speed, after the third time, I will likely stop flowing for you for the rest of the round. You will most definitely lose speaks as well, and since I judge what I flow, it might cost you the round. Don't let this happen to you.
Respect
I get that debate is competitive. I get that everyone wants to be the best and win the tournament. That in no way gives you an excuse to be disrespectful to your opponent or me. If you curse or say something transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything offensive at any point in the round, you will lose. I will drop you with whatever is the lowest score I could give you. This comes from the moment we are all in the "room" together to the moment I submitted my decision. At no circumstances is any form of offensive language acceptable, even if it's under your breath. There are like a billion different words and phrases you can use in the English Language, you can avoid saying something offensive. I have no tolerance for this.
Facial Reactions/Expressions
One thing I've found out about myself is that I am a person who shows a lot of my emotions through my face. If I am making a face and you're wondering, "oh that doesn't look good". You're probably right. It either means I am miserable, bored, or like I am confused out of my mind. If you see those faces, I'd change your argument so you don't have to see those not so good faces.
One Final Note
Good luck to everyone! I know we are living in a crazy time right now, but you got this! Be confident in who you are as a debater and you will do well. I typically like to give a "reading test" in my paradigm, but there isn't one this time, so be happy about that. :)
My name is Paul Ferraro.
This is my 2nd year judging LD.
In general, I value logical and persuasive argumentation over technique/structure. Successfully convince me that I should support or reject the proposition, and you'll win the ballot.
I encourage debaters to accurately identify formal logical fallacies in their opponents argumentation, allowing you to dismiss cards and/or contentions altogether.
Lastly, it is paramount that you speak at a comprehensible pace. This is an oratory activity, not a written one. Your ability to communicate clearly is essential to presenting a coherent and compelling case. In other words, no spreading.
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.
I am a first-year in university and debated for four years at Lexington High School, both in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas, and in both local and national circuits. (focused mainly on PF)
My email is aashnag05@gmail.com if you have any questions and for the email chain (send case for PF too).
I will evaluate anything that is explained thoroughly and clearly. I will refrain from intervening, just read what you want and please weigh!!!
My name is Jeremy Gold and I am a senior at Needham High school. I have lots of LD experience!
DO NOT BE SEXIST, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT OR I WILL GIVE YOU L-20
General tips:
1. Remember to sign-post
2. Time yourselves, please
3. Don't forget framework!!
4. WEIGH
Have fun! :)
EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.
Please just call me Hertzig.
Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com
QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)
BIG PICTURE:
CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.
SHORTCUT:
Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)
Trad debate - 1
T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)
High theory Ks - 4
Theory - 4 (see below)
Tricks - strike
*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).
GENERAL:
If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.
I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.
I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).
I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.
For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).
I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.
Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.
To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.
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,
Hi debaters! I am currently a first-year at the University of Virginia, and was an Academic All-American through NSDA, had four years of debate experience at Walpole High School, three of those years as the President of the team. I primarily focused in LD, but went to Nationals as a member of the New England WSD team in my Senior year. Debate was a huge part of my life in high school, and I hope to share the same enthusiasm with you in round! Now enough about me living in the past, let's move on to reason why you are reading this!
Here are some more general comments applicable to all styles of debate:
- The most important thing is to make sure everyone feels accepted in round and that they can express themselves without feeling attacked by the other side. When one side feels attacked, we lose this sense of the educative setting we are striving to maintain. That is to say do not attack your opponent(s) directly, please stick to the arguments at hand, and watch what you say.
- Please have fun! I know from personal experience that for some this academic sport is arguably the most stressful experience you will experience in your life, but I do not want you to feel in this round that your life depends on getting a victory. If you are stressed you will have a harder time presenting your arguments in full, so do not be afraid to take a second to relax before speaking. Here is a great article I recommend you take a look at if public speaking is something you are trying to work on (Bravo in advance for the effort! Not many people can do what you're doing, so keep it up!): https://hbr.org/2015/08/6-ways-to-reduce-the-stress-of-presenting
- For the FAQ of speed: I am the kind of person who listens to videos at 2x speed while reading along, so I can handle a pretty fast pace. That is to say that I am not impervious to making mistakes if I am processing the information to fast. I would say as long as you are still able to annunciate every idea in full and do not get carried away with the breathing technique associated with spreading, your speed should be fine. Just remember that I am human and I will make mistakes the faster you are, I am warning you now.
- I will be keeping track of time; however, I will give a 15 second cushion before cutting off a debater by saying "Time!" (I apologize in advance if it comes off aggressive I just want to make sure I maintain order and fairness in the round). I myself like to say a lot of words and run-on sentences, so as long as if you use the 15 seconds to finish the thought you are trying to make I will not ding you for that.
- I am neither strictly a tech nor truth judge. I say this in an attempt to eliminate any preconceived bias on how to win me over as a judge. I want to hear your authentic voices as best as possible (I mean, this is debate in all) and see you engaged in thought-provoking discussion about the resolution at hand. That is how you will win me over. I will value debaters demonstrating technique to edge their opponent, but I will also value debaters who demonstrate very well curated evidence that can be demonstrated by the debater as repeatable.
- If there is an email chain, I would like to be included. You can use the following email: amklevenson@comcast.net
For the LD Crowd:
- Theory: I was a local circuit kid most of my time in debate, so I am not well-versed in running/debating this area of debate myself; however, that is not to say that I do not know how it functions. I will say this: if you run theory, make sure it is articulated well and it is actually framed as a serious infraction to the normative processes of a typical debate round. Simply put, I will be upset if you run something like belt or shoe theory.
- K's: Again, not well-versed in running these myself, but am more comfortable with these than theory. Again, make sure if you runs a K that the links are outlined and defended as best you can. Most importantly, make sure its topical and relevant to the resolution.
- Definitions: I feel that this is the most underutilized part to any debate round. If you can provide definitions that can frame the round in favor of your side and carry them through throughout the entire round, you will definitely be rewarded by me!
- Framework: As you know, this is the most important part of the round, so make sure that you can articulate it as best you can and always make connections throughout.
- Contentions: I addressed this earlier in my tech v. truth section above, but just remember to connect everything back to framework and make sure the argument flows.
- Rebuttals/Weighing: Try your best to weigh in your rebuttals, but you will not win or lose a round just for weighing, and make sure to clash. You will win rebuttals by winning clash with cards.
For the PF Crowd:
I am not well-versed in the minutiae of PF debate, so treat me as a typical lay parent judge, walking me through the steps of the round and articulating clearly what to care about and why. That is the best advice I can give to you as of now to try and win me over, so if you follow this guideline I will have a higher likelihood of voting for your side.
lex '23
send docs to: acm2168@gmail.com
i'll judge any type of rd/args that are properly justified and extended
+ dont forget to weigh, and organized speeches will boost your speaks a lot
my name is anuka and I did debate for a couple years in high school. I did policy my freshman yr of high school and then switched over to ld my sophomore year. I debated a bit my sophomore year but debated like once or twice my junior year and then not at all senior year.
currently I am a freshman in college and am "part of" Columbia's debate team (aka I wanted the free sweatshirt lol)
im not very experienced in tech but will evaluate any arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained. take that as u will and plz dont read anything too crazy. if you have any questions email me
good luck
email chain: anuka.debate@gmail.com
Hello, I am a lay parent judge. Please make sure to do the following during the round
1. Speak slowly and clearly, so that I can flow.
2. An off-time road map would be helpful.
3. Please signpost in your speeches.
4. Make sure to keep track of time.
5. Make clear arguments
6. Make sure to give voters in your last speeches.
Here is my email for the chain: lalavanya.k@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!)
I am a former high school debater, turned Physics teacher and LD Coach/Faculty advisor.
I'm a scientist so... show me the receipts! I want to see evidence or theory to back up your arguments. If you don't have solid evidence in your links I will not buy your arguments. That does not mean I want you to read a million cards, this is LD not policy.
I love a good line by line analysis. I'm ok with progressive debate but prefer lay cases. Speed isn't an issue for me, but please give warning and get the ok from you competitor before beginning the round.
Hello,
I am a parent judge, 3rd year judging. Please avoid spreading. I prefer a traditional debate. Please be respectful of your opponent. Good luck!
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!
Hi, I have judged at national-level tournaments in PF and LD.
All events: be inclusive and KIND :)
I like good slow arguments and prefer speakers give clear instructions and organizations.
I will listen to all argumentations but please be reasonable...
I have taken the Cultural Competency course and other certifications for NSDA.
ASK BEFORE ROUND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
My Pronouns are She / Her
Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.nwosu8@gmail.com
If there is no road map, why would I flow.
Hi, I am Mmesoma. I was a JV Policy Debater on the Regional and National level but I am now a regular judge for regional tournaments. I would consider myself a traditional judge with small exceptions of how you should debate.
Just a Disclaimer, my face moves a lot without my intention. Please do not think I am bored, not paying attention, confused or upset. Just know that I am very much paying attention. If you see me giggle, you said something funny.
Speed:
Spreading is NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I believe that speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST! You do not need to impress me.
Cross Examination:
I appreciate respectful and peaceful cross examination. I do not flow cross unless it clarifies an argument I am confused about but flowing cross is unusual for me. Yelling and abusive behavior will lead to speaker points deduction (you would probably see it on my face) but rudeness/attitude would not be a major RFD on my ballot.
Tricks
Tricks are NOT appreciated at all. Tricks make me uncomfortable as it is an unfair advantage. Instead of tricking your opponent, I feel as though you are tricking me as the judge.
End of Round
I will most likely give a critique once the round is done as well as the vote, if it is okay with both teams. I determine my vote based solely on what is on my flow and full understanding of both arguments. I am not a super super experienced debater, I may miss things, that it is why its so important to articulate and extent your argument as clearly as possible.
If I deem an argument racist, I am not voting for it.
Thank you so much! See y'all in the round.
I debated for Stuyvesant in LD for four years. I've been out of the activity for two years, so try to keep the spreading to about 75%. You may also want to spend a bit more time on overviews than you normally do.
Add me to the email chain: gcpatel718@gmail.com
Prefs:
Policy/Larp - 1
Kritik - 1
High Theory - 2 (1 for Bifo or Baudy)
Framework/Phil - 3
T/Theory - 3
Tricks - 5
All this said, you can read anything in front of me as long as it's not violent/discriminatory and I will evaluate it to the best of my abilities.
With speaks, I'll try to average a 28.5. You'll do better than that If you weigh your offense and give clear overviews. Try to write the rfd for me in your 2nr/ars.
Tech > truth, but not to a fault. I am a college student with a reasonably good understanding of philosophical and political issues, so of course I have my biases. It's going to be harder to convince me of something I don't think is applicable in real life. If you read something sketchy and your opponent drops it, I will grant it to you, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that is exceedingly dumb. Use your best judgement and try to keep everything grounded in empirical and historical context.
Theory Defaults: Drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps (but I will be happy if you go for reasonability). I am generally not a fan of disclosure theory, but there are definitely situations in which I would vote on it. Also, don't read frivolous theory.
ROB: I default to comparative worlds, but don't let that stop you from reading another ROB. This is usually the most interesting meta-debate within a round.
Ks: I was a K debater in high school, so I love these rounds. That said, I'd rather judge a bad policy debate than a bad K debate. If you don't understand the literature you're reading, I won't either. I think overviews and real-world examples/contextualization are key to the K debate, particularly when it comes to the alternative. I will have a hard time voting for you if you win your links but not your alt solvency. If you decide to use the links as independent voters, you will need to prove uniqueness to the aff.
I have a higher burden of proof for (completely) Non-T affs. I generally think topicality is good and I think it's pretty easy to make most Ks topical, especially if you adopt a loose/creative interpretation of topicality. This doesn't mean I won't vote for a Non-T aff, but if your opponent reads T-Framework against you, I'd advise you to interact with the content of the shell. I rarely buy that case outweighs unless you can prove that it would be a performative contradiction for you to be topical.
FW/Phil: I've been getting into analytic philosophy in college, so I may understand these arguments more than I did when I was debating. That said, I'm still not super confident in my ability to evaluate fw debate outside of basics like Kant or Hobbes, so err on the side of over-explanation. I also want to see frameworks with syllogisms, not just random independent justifications.
Policy: Assume I don't have any topic knowledge. I'm fine with counterplans and PICS. I'm not going to vote on a tiny chance of extinction. Larping doesn't mean you can't be creative!
Other things to be aware of:
Use the author's name when extending warrants/case turns.
You can ask questions, but please don't argue with me after I make a decision. It can only hurt you.
Show me, your opponent, and yourself the utmost respect in (and out of) round.
Try to enjoy yourself! In my ideal world, debate is more about experimenting with different ideas and developing a nuanced worldview than any competitive success. If you read something really creative I'll definitely bump your speaks.
I did LD for four years in high school and I've also done PF.
I can understand most theory and alternative debate strategies, but I consider running a K without responding to your opponent's case unfair.
I'm not a fan of spreading, but it's okay as long as you're not mumbling.
For case sharing, my email is annika.ruda@gmail.com
I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well.
I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory.
Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.
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
Senior LD debater at Lexington High School
Add me to the email chain: mahadsohail@gmail.com
Tech over truth, here's a quick pref:
-
Theory
-
K
-
Phil
-
Larp
-
Tricks
I’m open to evaluating any arguments as long as they have a warrant, including arguments that change the order I should evaluate the debate.
Theory: I’ve debated a lot of theory and enjoy judging theory debates. I don’t default to any paradigm issues/voters so make sure to warrant relevant paradigm issues. I will evaluate frivolous theory and don’t mind judging it. I consider theory as the highest layer but I’m more than open to arguments that say otherwise (k first, form v content etc.).
K: I’m best at evaluating Dysfluency, Psychoanalysis, Pess, Semiocap, and anything similar. I’m open to any K’s or K affs as long as they are clearly explained. If you’re missing parts of your thesis or theory of power I will be less inclined to vote off of it, especially if it's just a mix of buzzwords.
Phill: Needs to be explained and TJF’s are fine. I’m good with Kant, Hegel, Virtue ethics, and Util.
Larp: Larps fine just make sure to weigh between impacts and under framework. Make method cards implications clear
Tricks: I’m not good at evaluating tricks debates but if it's clear I will do my best to evaluate it.
Novices/Trad: Feel free to debate however you like. Remember that framing is the highest level. Make sure you weigh all your arguments under your own framework and don’t forget to attack your opponent's framing. Using CX effectively will increase your speaks and will likely help you win the round. Judges aren’t allowed to evaluate CX so make sure you make CX-dependent arguments are brough up in your speech. Also, time yourselves.
Most importantly have fun!