I debated in LD at Lexington HS (2019 - 2023) and acquired eight career bids. Now I coach circuit debaters and work at the Atlanta Urban Debate League. Email: jayden.bai@gmail.com.

TLDR: I'll vote on anything but I will intervene against exclusionary arguments.

General

Make sure to be clear. I will not vote on arguments that I didn't hear in previous speeches which means your spreading needs to be understandable. At the end of the day, debate is a persuasion game which means debaters need to be clear and articulate because that ultimately affects the tech and flow of the round.

Most familiar with pretty much any theory/phil strategy, 1AR restarts, etc. but would prefer to judge policy rounds.

My favorite debates are when the 1NC is all on case. I love impact turn 1NC's.

I love creative K affs but winning against framework means separating your specific research practice from competitive incentives. For framework debaters, the clash 2NR just seems more articulate but I have no problem voting on the fairness 2NR. Every affirmative, fundamentally, just has to show me that there is something wrong with the status quo and the negative must challenge that argument.

Honestly, any type of argument done right gets my ballot. the sillier the argument, the harder to do right, but done smoothly = higher speaker points. It's not about what your argument is it's about how you present it and how you implicate it.

Misc.

As much as I want to avoid dogmatism in my decisions, I am aware of biases that I have and I think it's better to communicate them than pretend they don't exist. However, it's a debate so if you want to change my mind I'm happy to hear your reasons why:

- Critiques of debaters' research projects/arguments are fine but when an argument implies that "my opponent is a bad person", I won't feel comfortable voting on the argument. I don't think my ballot as an educator should be a referendum on a high school student's personal character.

- I would much rather you read evidence ethics challenges as a theory argument so the violation can be debated over. If there is a challenge I will reference whatever tournament rules I should be following.

- I'm not against sassiness in round. Get as passionate as you want but if a power imbalance seems to be developing I'm going to tell y'all to chill out.

- I think open source, round reports, and cites for every single round + contact info and correct tournament names are ideal for disclosure.

- I don't think debate, like any competitive HS activity, is neutral and I understand how different students come from different backgrounds and experiences. However, there is a level of procedural fairness that needs to be preserved in order for the game to work.

Welcome to LD and thank you for sharing your interest in debate with me and the Debate community. 

As you begin your case statement, I will carefully listen for a succinct explanation of how your criterion obtains your value.  I will also listen carefully for a reason that I should choose your value over your opponent's value. 

Please sign post, even (and especially) during rebuttals. In LD abstract concepts can be inter-related and arguments can overlap. Sign posting increases your chances that I "flow" your approach in a manner consistent with how you think I should flow your approach.

I give high points to people who make an effort to make sure their opponent understands their arguments. I award lower points to speakers who attempt to confuse their opponent by presenting overly technical/obtuse/complex arguments.

Thank you for this opportunity to be a part of your Debate experience! 

My name is Tasneem (she/her), I am a 4th year debater with experience in both PF and LD. email: tyghadiali@gmail.com

First, have fun! Debate is for learning and meant to be enjoyable! I would love it if you read creative and interesting arguments. Don't stress!

I want CLEAR arguments. If you can't explain it in your own words, don't read it.

Most important to me is comparison: you must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponent's!! Write my RFD in your last speech. For novices, I like hearing

• worlds comparison: weigh the aff world to the neg world and what happens in each
• a list of voters highlighting key issues of the round / why you win this round
• good signposting
• good rhetoric and speech skills
• demonstrating deep topic knowledge -> this is really important to me, make sure you know your case in & out

I will vote off the flow. Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh.

I do not flow cross but I listen. If something important happens in cross, tell me in your next speech and I'll flow it. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep.

Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will be an auto loss.

Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. But, if I can’t flow the speech, I will probably dock speaker points.

Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

Feel free to ask questions after the round, I love answering them.

My name is Hannah(she/her) and I’m a 4th year LD debater at Lexington High School. I compete on the local and national circuit.

email: guohannah67@gmail.com

Novice:

-Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will likely be an auto loss.

-Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. I will also give reminders but if I can’t flow the speech, I will dock speaker points. Try to signpost often so I can keep track of your arguments.

**If you cannot understand the opponent because of speed, you may tell them to slow down during the speech.

-Spend time on the framework debate! I will usually evaluate it first.

-Make sure to weigh your impacts and explain why one is more important than the other.

-Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

-Remember to give voters in your final speeches and tell me why you’re winning the round.

-Have fun!

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

Hello,

My name is Nitin Mehrotra and I am a parent judge. Please don't spread. I will judge you on sound evidence-based arguments, your flow of thoughts, and the way you position your responses to opponents' contention, rather than framework or technical procedures. Be respectful and professional with each other during the debate. All the best for your rounds.

Hi, I'm Aaron Shao (He/Him). I'm a junior at Lexington High School and this is my third year doing LD. I compete on the local and national circuit.

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

Quick Overview For Novices:

SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches).

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

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

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

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

A note on complex arguments, its been a while since I've done any major debating so be sure to flesh out arguments and clearly explain links.

Thanks and have a good round!

______________

Theory

Theory is alright, and I sometimes read topicality and disclosure. I can remember my novice years when I depended on theory for rounds lol.

Phil

I understand basic phil arguments. If you're reading something more complex, clearly explain links and weighing though you're probably better off reading something else.

Tricks

I don't enjoy listening to tricks. Stacking tricks is pretty abusive.

Kritiks

I read these, kritiks are great. Extinction outweighs is a good argument, so you probably need k turns case, alt solves, etc. or else I'll probably vote for case outweighs. Like phil, I haven't read a lot of k literature so should be well explained. Good kritiks can be fun to listen to.

K affs

You can read a k aff if you want. I haven't read a lot of k literature so unless you want me to be confused, you're better off reading something else.

Policy

I also read these a lot. I'm very used to evaluating policy v policy debates.

Email: 24awang@westfordk12.us

Hi! I'm Angela Wang (she/her) - I'm a senior debating my fourth year of LD for Westford Academy.

• tech > truth
• Considered args should be extended throughout the round
• Be organized in your speeches. Give an off-time roadmap and signpost please.
• It's good practice to default referring to your opponent as "they" or "my opponent" if pronouns were not specified
• Speaks average 28.5

Things I appreciate:

1. Please no spreading. It will be difficult for me to follow and take notes.

2. Speak clearly.

3. In your final speeches, please summarize your arguments and provide clear voters.

4. An off-time roadmap would be helpful for me to follow your speech.

5. I am not a fan of counter plans. Use with caution if you must, but based on past experiences, I generally see that as agreeing with the Affirmative.

Info

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use evidence to back up your claim.

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

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

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

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

Overview For Varsity:

Quick Prefs

Theory - 1

Policy - 1/2

Phil - 2

T - 2/3

Friv Theory - 4

Ks - 4/5

Trixs - 5/Strike

Specifics

Tech > Truth

Policy -

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

Theory -

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

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

Phil -

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

Ks -

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

Tricks -

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

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

Speaks:

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

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

Good luck and have fun!!!