urban dragon note!! Please go slow and explain your arguments! I do not usually judge policy.

also, please keep volume to a reasonable level (please do not yell) :)

My name is Tasneem (she/her). I debated in LD in high school.

please note I do not have a lot of topic knowledge so be sure to be extra clear in your arguments.

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! Second, 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. Third, Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh. Fourth, 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. Fifth, note that I am more comfortable with slower speeds. Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

My name is Hannah(she/her) and I was an LD debater at Lexington High School. I competed on the local and national circuit for four years

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!

Varsity:

-Generally Tech>Truth unless arguments are blatantly problematic

-Comfortable with policy and theory, okay with philosophy, kritiks, and T to some extent---just explain your arguments thoroughly and don't expect me to understand specific jargon.

-Not comfortable with tricks but willing to evaluate with explanation

Background: Senior, 4th Year High School LD Debater at Lexington High School.

Email: 25stu397@lexingtonma.org

Arguments:I am comfortable with any arguments. Just be clear on what you are running.

How to win:

1.) Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

2.) Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.

3.) Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.

4.) Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.

Speakers:

1.) Give clear off-time road maps so that both I am able to follow each argument on the flow. During the speech make sure to clearly state if you are moving on the neg/aff side of the flow. Try to go top to bottom and if you end up jumping from different arguments, just make sure what argument is being addressed.

2.) If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important words/sentences/paragraphs.

3.) Be nice and respectful.

4.) Be creative and logical with arguments. I like to see arguments that are addressed with basic logic and reasoning.

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions

Please Get tHe email cHain started before start time.

Staking the round on ev ethics Loser gets 26 Winner gets 29.2

Post-Rounding is Good

Update: -0.5 speaks if you say “Russia/China don’t commit human rights abuses”

I am a Junior from Lex and have debated on the National Circuit for Two Years. I mainly read policy arguments and some theory.

I'll disclose speaks unless if you ask not to

1 - Policy/Larp/Util, T/Theory, Trad

2 - Stock K's, Kant, Tricks

3 - Other Phil

4 - High Theory K's

lexingtonrldebate@gmail.com

This trend of not highlighting warrants in cards is not something I will go along with

All of these are not based on my personal opinions on certain arguments but rather my understanding of the argument.

Tech>Truth

If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote for it

I will drop you if you are bigoted in any way

I will drop you if you defend horrible leaders such as Assad, Putin, Xi, Gaddafi, etc. (It is fine if you say China Heg good, if it prevents extinction, but if you say "the uyghur genocide isn't real" or "Assad didn't actually use the chemical weapons")

Novice/Trad

I am a "tech" judge and will evaluate the round base don who is winning on the flow. Ethos will not count for me in determining the decision. Make sure to weigh under the winning framework and do not have a pointless framework debate if they are the same framework ("maximizing well-being" vs. "consequentialism"). Make sure to collapse.

I will give a 30 if you say "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc" and it is dropped by your opponent. I will stop flowing if it is dropped. However, I will give you an L 27 if you forget to extend it through every speech, since I won't have flowed the rest of the debate and that's on you.

Policy

This is the type of debate I do the most, and am most comfortable evaluating.

Most evidence in LD is really bad, you should point that out

That being said, you still have to win on a technical level. I think good technical debating can overcome any disparity in evidence quality.

Disad turns case isn't an offensive argument unless if you win uniqueness.

I'm not too experienced with in-depth competition debates.

I don't think new 2nr evidence is legitimate unless if they are directly responsive to the 1ar.

Topicality

I've read a policy-style T and answered it a lot, so I feel comfortable evaluating these debates

Make sure to actually read voters, this trend of not reading voters and paradigm issues is kind of stupid.

I am fine if you read Nebel T, though it probably isn't the most strategic argument.

Theory

I have read theory, especially a lot of disclosure theory, and it's pretty intuitive to understand. You can read any shell in front of me.

I am fine if you read friv theory.

You should disclose. Including round reports

K's

I haven't really read K's much but I've debated against K's a lot, and I understand how the debate works.

I understand the literature of stock k's like cap, security, setcol, pess k's, etc. High theory K's will need a lot of explanation.

I probably am subconsciously biased towards the policy side of larp v k debates, cuz i have mainly been on the larp side. That being said, if you are winning you will still win

I will vote for arguments that many in the debate community will disagree with. That includes arguments such as hegemony good as an impact turn, arguments for why alts would be unethical, etc.

I am a mainstream Liberal who thinks things like Hegemony and Capitalism are good. Winning on a technical level will go 1000x farther then trying to persuasively grandstand.

Phil

I really don't understand anything that well other then util or kant, but I'll probably b enable to understand it if you explain it well

Please implicate your arguments well and weigh especially for these debates.

Tricks

Make sure they have warrants - in the first speech they were read.

These are pretty easy to understand but if it's incoherent in the first speech and then explained in a later speech I'll probably give the other side leeway for new responses.

Trad

I will evaluate the round technically - I can evaluate trad rounds but I don't like the style of debate. If it's a tech vs trad round the tech debater will most likely win.

Speaks

I will not give higher speaks for arguments I like. Your speaks will solely reflect the quality of debating. I won't deduct speaks for reading tricks, but if you collapse on a dropped eval argument, that means your argument quality was not as good. However, if you extend and weigh between different tricks in a high quality manner you can still get high speaks (you should probably still extend other arguments even if eval is dropped for example).

I don't judge often, so excessive speed is counterproductive on the debaters' part. I follow where the rounds are going, and expect to be led to the big arguments for either side, which I hope will somehow conflict with one another. In the average PF round I've seen, decisions boil down mostly to a couple of points, so if each team has three voters separate from the other side's voters, you're asking me to intervene. Pick the arguments you really want me to decide on.

Exeter '26

um202244@umich.edu

For Camp

Policy/Phil - 1

Substantive tricks/theory - 2

K - 2/3

Theory tricks - 3/4

K aff - 4/5

1. Fine for policy arguments; I've read over most of the stuff in the files, but if you're reading a new-ish AFF, just make sure to explain the scenarios well.

2. If you're reading a K, I'd advise against kicking the alt/going for framework without any external offense. Truthfully, you-link-you-lose is probably both unfair and uneducational. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it, just that the threshold for winning it is high. Conversely, Ks should probably get links to reps at some level, but the impacts of those reps should have to outweigh the impacts of the plan unless the alt solves the case. Reading a K as a critical DA + CP with the reps impacts as a tiebreaker is probably the most strategic.

3. Not great for K affs that are actively non-topical. Topical K affs are fine just be ready to defend why your impacts come first and that your interpretation of the topic is valid.

4. For theory, there's no such thing as friv theory. Read whatever you want, but the more "frivolous" it is, the easier it will be to beat. Paradigm issues and weighing are key if you want me to evaluate the theory layer the way you want. Default DTD, no RVIs, CI, but think RVIs/reasonability can be strategic if deployed correctly. Theory still needs warrants, so please don't read spikes. If you do, please be clear about the warrants and implications. Interps are probably key to normsetting, but I'll still vote on paragraph theory if you win it's legit. Default spirit>text, but can be changed very easily.

Background: Senior, 4th Year Debater at Lexington High School.

Email: 25stu260@lexingtonma.org

Arguments: I am fine with all types of arguments, but make sure they are clear

Important things to do:

1. Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

2. Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.

3. Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.

4. Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.

Speakers:

1. Give off-time road maps so that I can follow each argument on the flow. Be sure to sign-post in speeches as well.

2. If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important parts

3. Be nice and respectful

4. Arguments must be logical and have clear links, warrants, and impacts

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions

Hi, I am a parent judge from Needham. I ask that you please do not spread. Use off-time roadmaps and signpost well. In regards to theory, I do not fully comprehend it so if you decide to run be sure to explain it well. Enunciate your words well so that I can fully understand you and flow your arguments well.