Laird Lewis Invitational
2023 — Charlotte, NC/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideLay Judge
Limited experience judging PF. No experience judging LD.
Speak slowly and clearly.
I am a marketing and product development executive for a global technology company based in Charlotte, NC.
Please be prepared, follow the time rules, and stay on topic.
Make sure that all of your arguments, especially those containing definitions and statistics, come from a reliable sources.
A well prepared argument framework should be obvious.
Being courteous to your opponent is mandatory.
Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.
Tech>Truth
Good luck and have fun!
Hello! My name is Michelle, and I am a recent alum of Princeton University.
Add me to the email chain: michelle.dai.2019@gmail.com
Please consider me a lay judge; while I have experience judging Lincoln-Douglas debate, I was never a debater myself.
Please be courteous to each other, no spreading (unless you send cases), and have fun!
The winner will be determined by:
- Who does a better job defending their own case (includes connecting back to framework!)
- Who does a better job critiquing their opponent (politely, any rudeness will result in docked speaker points, including in CX)
- Whoever is the most cohesive (if you run something that I don't know the meaning of, I will still judge on what I can understand but it will severely lower your speaker points)
Miscellaneous points:
- Please do not run kritiks as I will not evaluate them.
- I do disclose scores provided that you do not aggressively post-round. As a lay judge I unfortunately cannot provide you with the technical explanations and outcomes you may expect from an experienced judge.
Good luck everyone :D
General
Email: Ewingtonlouis@gmail.com
Pronouns: He/Him
I debated LD for four years in HS at North Mecklenburg HS in North Carolina. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and German at Tufts University. If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, I will be happy to clarify.
Prefs
Phil - 1.
Ks - 2: most familiar with Cap Ks, but feel free to throw something interesting like a Heidegger or Baudrillard K my way
Theory - 3
LARP/Policy- 4
Tricks - No.
Framework(s) and all that Jazz
- The framework is the primary point of contention within a round. It frames the scope and perspective of your case, and is incredibly important to guiding my decision. E.g. what may be the moral option under util may not be under a deontological framework, because the question of what is "moral" is evaluated differently between the two. So, while you may convince me that your impact outweighs your opponent in a round, that doesn't matter if your opponent won the framework debate, and convinces me that consequentialism isn't an adequate way to evaluate a moral decision. In short, tell me what value framework guides my decision, then tell me how your case fulfills it.
- I'm partial to unique frameworks. Saying "my value is morality and the criterion is maximizing wellbeing/util/consequentialism," or some variation thereof gets boring very fast and makes for a less dynamic, more predictable, and very generic debate. Don't be afraid to introduce an interesting framework that breaks from this monotony. In essence, please do not neglect the value debate.
- Write my ballot for me. Tell me why exactly I am voting for you and extend your case accordingly. I will not be extending anything on the flow that you don't do the work of explaining yourself.
- Warrant your framework. Don't just tell me what your value and criterion are. Tell me WHY they are what they are, i.e how it's relevant to the resolution. This goes for any observations, definitions, burdens, etc. that you may have in your case as well.
- When you do warrant your framework, make sure it is not circular! "Judge prefer util because it's the only framework that can properly maximize pleasure/minimize pain." Like yeah, obviously that's what utilitarianism does. but tell me why that matters in the first place!
- Generally speaking, I don't love Util (or its many variations) at all. However, since so many folks run it, I think it's important to mention that when looking at any consequentialist framework I will take some things into consideration:
1. Have a clear impact. I have run into cases before which simply don't explain the actual consequences of negating/affirming the resolution, despite having a consequentialist value framework. When running a framework that evaluates morality based off of the consequences of an action, you can imagine why this may be an issue. This makes it very hard to see how I as the judge am meant to make the supposedly "moral" choice when its consequentialist moral qualifications are opaque. In essence, make your impacts clear and explicit.
2. Stemming off of this, once you've hopefully ascertained that you as a consequentialist have impacts, weigh them! It isn't enough just to tell me how bad x or y impact is in your rebuttal. You need to do the heavy lifting of contrasting these impacts with those of your opponent.
Speaking
- I'm fine with speaking relatively fast, but I am not overly familiar with spreading. If you spread I may have a very hard time understanding you. If I cannot understand you, writing a decision in your favor will be difficult.
- Signpost.
- Crystalize.
- I am more than fine with being brazen in rounds, but don't take this too far. I.e. you can be sassy, but don't be mean or hurtful to your opponent.
- I think it's a futile task to try and reduce speaker points down to an exact science. No, I cannot tell you the exact boundary between what determines 29 and 28 speaker points, and I frankly am not sure anyone truthfully can. Coming from a point of candor, the most exact answer I can give on how I determine speaks is as follows: If you speak well, you're likely to get higher speaks. If you speak poorly you're likely to get lower speaks. The exception to this is being unnecessarily rude, mean, or belligerent to your opponent or me, which will result in the lowest possible speaker points.
Flow
- I will base my decision off of the flow. I do not and will not vote based off of which side "spoke better." I am judging debate after all, so the flow is the crux of my decision.
- Tech > Truth. However, this doesn't mean you can run completely bonkers and logically invalid arguments. I.e. make sure that if I assume the premises of your argument, there is no possible situation in which the conclusion can be false. I.e. Make sure your argument actually follows the structure of, you know, an argument.
- Quality > Quantity. I prefer two good, well warranted and linked contentions as opposed to four sloppy and small contentions.
- I don't flow cross. However, I will still pay attention and look to how it engages with the flow.
Other Stuff
- Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, etc. Duh. This will result in a loss.
- Lastly, this paradigm is subject to subtractions, additions, and any/all change in general. If there are questions about it you may have, feel free to ask me! I can clear it up before and after the round, and add on to this paradigm for the future!
Hello,
I am a parent judge, and this is my third year judging LD. If you are doing prefs, please consider me as a lay judge. I flow off the round, and I am unable to follow spreading. Be clear and coherent, because if I can't understand what you are saying, then I can't vote for you.
email ~ bagopa@gmail.com
tl;dr I’m a LARP debater who knows basic circuit stuff. I’m ok with spreading, as long as there’s a doc.
Hi! I'm Laura Han, a freshman at Duke. A quick rundown of my debate career (though I’ve been out of it for half a year): I did LD for four years, mostly lay but some circuit as well, and dabbled in World Schools in my senior year. I’m familiar with progressive arguments but am definitely not the best at evaluating them. In terms of judging, I’m tabula rasa, but will not buy arguments that clearly go against scientifically supported fact like “dogs can fly” or “climate change is not real.” I also do not tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. language; if you have to think “is this offensive?” then maybe don’t say it.
Here are a brief outline of my preferences:
tech ————x——— truth: this is kind of an oversimplification because an argument is inherently more persuasive if it has multiple different warrants, but overall, whoever has the most valid ink on the flow wins that argument. If the debate becomes too convoluted, I'll mark it a wash, so it’s in your best interest to be clear and organized about your arguments (signpost! I have not flowed in a while!)
LARP (Plans/CPs/PICs etc.) —x—————— K/Theory: im fine with basic critiques like cap k, fem k, ir ks, etc. If its anything high theory like Baudrillard, then you’re going to have to do more legwork explaining it to me. I won't vote off something I don’t understand.
Framework debate: read value criterion as framework (don’t read the value, I don’t care whether justice is better than morality)
Hi, I'm Aum. I've competed in LD + WSD. I attend UNC.
I can follow the flow. Don't talk too fast. LARP pref.
- Read authors and taglines SUPER SLOW and CLEARLY
- Explain arguments assuming I have no topic knowledge
- Summarize messy rounds
- Moderate Speed
- Weigh
- I like animal-rights arguments, and will more than likely buy any weighing arguments for animal life being as important as human life (+speaks)
- Make me laugh / make the round entertaining (+speaks)
I am now an experienced parent judge. You may debate any way that you prefer. I am impressed with debaters who really understand their research and can organize their positions in a coherent way. I am less impressed with debaters who use words they don't understand or appear to be reading off the page something that someone else wrote. However, I applaud the efforts of all debaters and think this activity is an admirable use of your time.
Amy Love Klett
Hey, I'm Elaine (she/her). I'm a sophomore at MIT; in high school I did 4 years of LD with extensive experience in World Schools (nsda 2x quarters) and a bit of experience in Extemp.
(Note: most of this paradigm is Ely Altman's)
In LD, I focused on trad and policy debate and do not have that much experience with K's or advanced theory. I am theoretically open to hearing all kinds of arguments (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic knowledge. But if you have more stock arguments available, I do prefer those.
Please include me on the email chain: eliu0499@gmail.com. If you go too fast or aren't clear when reading, though, I won't fill in the gaps for you. I also don't love listening to spreading, so please try not to unless you absolutely have to.
GENERAL:
Run what you want (but ideally more trad stuff). I'll do my best to evaluate it. Communication comes first for me though. If I can't understand your arguments and warrants, that's on you, and I have no problem making that my RFD.
I like it when debaters collapse effectively on arguments. Crystallizing and world comparison in the round goes a long way with me. I also like to see debaters cede the true parts of their opponent's case but give nuanced analysis on why they outweigh.
If you make me laugh you'll get a mini speaks boost.
Lastly, if possible, make me care about your arguments! Tell me explicitly who you help, and why that matters. Judges aren't robots. If you can give me a convincing narrative tinged with passion, it goes a long way.
Short Prefs:
traditional debate / flay - 1
LARP- 2
identity Ks - 3
High theory Ks and phil - 4-5
T/theory- 4. I don't love, but I'll vote on well-warranted/egregious violations. Also fair warning: I'm inexperienced with T. Run it if you have to, but make it easy for me to understand/vote for you.
Tricks - strike. Just don't.
Trad LD:
I decide debates through layers. Framework, observations, burdens, etc are all crucial to structuring the debate. I look to what operates at the highest ground, decide who won that point, and move to the next layer. Rinse and repeat until the debate has a winner. Thus, it would benefit you to try to structure the debate in such a way that you have a win condition.
Now, here are some things that’ll make voting for you easier for me.
1. ENGAGE WITH FRAMEWORK. Weigh frameworks against each other. Even better if y’all haven’t agreed on a FW yet, tell me how you win under both your FW and your opponents (if you do this, I’ll boost your speaks).
2. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. If you don’t weigh offense, I have to guess at the end of the round whose impacts are more important. You don’t want that because it makes the round very subjective on my end. Instead, go the extra mile, avoid that, and tell me why your offense is more important than your opponents.
3. Please do extensions correctly. Do not just say "extend my second contention" or "extend Warren 13" and then move on. Extend the ev or arg, rebut any arguments they made, explain the impact of the extension, and THEN move on.
4. I like numbered responses and overviews. They make the debate easier for me to flow/understand.
5. Round narrative is very important. Don’t lose sight of what this debate is really about because you’re too busy focusing on an irrelevant tangent that won’t factor into my decision. Tell me overall why your world is better than your opponents. Tell me who you help, why they need help, why you’re the person that best helps them, and why that matters. That’s how to win in front of me.
6. Voter issues. Do them. It makes evaluating the debate much easier. A bit of advice. Negative, if you correctly predict what the Aff voters will be in NR and tell me why I shouldn’t vote for it, that’s a great strategic move, and I’ll boost speaks. Affirmative, in the 2ar, interact with the Neg voters, and I’ll boost speaks. They literally just handed you on a silver platter the arguments they’re hoping to win. So attack or (better yet) turn their voters! Outweigh their voters with yours!
Progressive LD:
I'm in between on the tech vs. truth debate. Obviously, tech matters because full truth would justify me voting for Aff just because I personally believe that side. Full tech justifies the race to the bottom we see right now with debaters throwing out unwarranted blips and expecting to win because their opponent dropped a single sentence. I'm somewhere in the middle probably slightly leaning towards tech. No one is tabula rasa. You trust me to use my agency to make a decision about who won the round, so trust me to use my agency to decide whether tech or truth matters more in a specific round.
Things I like: increasing accessibility in the debate space (i.e being inclusive to small schools & new debaters), warranted out link chains, probability>magnitude weighing. Good evid ethics! Also, I will always prefer logical analytics over poorly contextualized evidence. Lastly, please weigh, signpost, and extend.
Things I dislike: Tricks, lack of clarity, when debaters read literature they don't understand and can't make comprehensible in round, shady disclosure, friv theory, arguments that are (either implicitly or explicitly) exclusionary, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. That will get you dropped. Also new in the last speech, just don't.
CX is binding.
SPEECH
I did some extemp my senior year and have watched a lot of speech rounds online, I will try my best to evaluate rounds!
If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!
I am a parent volunteer judge. I prefer that you do not talk too fast or spread, so that I am able to fully understand what you are saying. Thank you and good luck!
I am a parent of a debater and I participated in Lincoln Douglas Debate in High School. Although the resolutions are very different, the underlying premise in value debate is the same and above all else it is important to so reasoning in either establishing a case or refuting. We NEVER spoke quickly in our time - but that has changed and that is understandable, however I would prefer a reasonable to brisk pace. I do not appreciate 'spreading' as this takes away from the communication aspect of this style in my opinion. Please be thoughtful in your words, establish a repoire with those around you, Please be respectful and tolerant. Like good cooking, some thoughts need to simmer. I want to see arguments for definitions and value criterion linked to reason, evidence, example and carried through the round. This is the base of the pyramid for me. Evidence is applicable when placed in a solid / sound construct. Relax and enjoy your debates as much as I will enjoy hearing your ideas.
This is my fifth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.
Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.
I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.
I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.
Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.
Hi debaters! My name is Jason Petrin and I am a software architect by trade. I am a parent judge and typically judge LD. Here are a few dos and don’t for rounds that I judge…
1. Do not spread. This may seem obvious but unfortunately some still struggle with making points clear. If I do not hear it it does not get flowed.
2. I judge SOLELY off the flow.
3. I do not judge during cross and I will not even flow it.
4. (For LD) Values are heavily considered during my final decision. That being said please understand the difference between a value and a value criterion.
5. Do not use ad hominem attacks, it is lazy and insulting to your opponent.
Good luck!
This is my third year of judging. Use good communication skills, be clear and concise, and be professional and respectful to each other. I want to hear factual evidence that is logical and well-researched to prove to me why you should win over your opponent. Some other highlights...
Speaker Points:
I generally stick to a range of 25-29, with 25 being average or slightly below, 26 being decent, 27 being good, 28 being very good, and 29 being exceptional. I'll reserve 30 for a speaker who knocks it out of the park. If you are being unnecessarily rude, condescending to your opponent, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.
Speed:
For me, this is related to speaker points. I'm okay with you speaking somewhat quickly, but be clear and concise. Be aware that the faster you speak means I may miss important arguments that could win the round for you or your team, so take that into consideration when it comes to speaking and clarity. I also am not a fan of spreading. If you spread, I will not select you as the winner and will lower your points.
Feel free to ask me questions at the beginning of the round if you want to know anything else. Most of all, have fun!
My names is Keri Schacht, I am a second year judge. I really enjoy judging.
I prefer slower speech, with a mutual respect between opponents. Clear and concise speech is also always a plus, with a positive attitude along with a passion for whatever subject they are discussing. I also look for the person who is able to better convince me of their side of the argument.
Overall, I look for confidence, eye contact, respect, and a love for debate in each and every opponent.
Happy Debating!
Please speak at a slower pace so I can fully understand what is being said.
I am relatively new to judging high school debate so will take my time to really think about the scoring and it would be most helpful if you can speak clearly and concisely.
I will take a lot of notes and arguments that cause me to think about the topic in a unique or new way will stand out to me as long as they are credible and well-supported. Any cockiness or rudeness to your opponent will detract from the merits of your argument so please be kind and speak respectfully. I have appreciation for the debater that can take a deep breath and proceed calmly when the debate is getting heated.
I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.
Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.
If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.
Be confident, respectful and have fun.