Hi! I'm Diane (you can call me by my nickname Dani), and I'm a high school policy debater at Lexington High School, MA.

Add me to the email chain: dnchngtwn@gmail.com

In Round (General)

1) Be clear when you read. I'm guessing that you're not going to spread, but whether you do it or not, be clear. I won't hesitate to say "clearer". And if you don't make your speaking clearer, you're getting low speaks.

2) Do NOT run 10+ offs. I don't think that's productive for an educational debate (and I believe in education). So if you run that many, I will probably give you low speaks.

3) Signpost. For example, If you're giving the 1NC, make sure you say "First off is the states CP....Next off is the IRS DA....etc". Also, every time you move on from one card to the next, say "next" or "and" or anything that makes it clear that you're reading a new card.

4) Be polite! This is a round, and nobody is debating to hurt each others' feelings. If I hear any concerning remarks, I will give you LOW speaks.

Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended within the context of the round. Engage in the fw debate by directly weighing your standards against your opponents. I won't vote on fairness as a voter, but if you explain why fairness is an I/L to education (the impact), then I would vote on education.

One-off FW: I don't like these debates. But if you MUST, make the debate clear and easy to understand because if you spread analytics, I probably won't be able to flow everything. But truly, try to avoid having these debates as a novice. I don't think you're ready for them.

Theory and T: Make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. Actually take time to impact it out in the 2NR by clearly articulating your standards and voters. T, for me, is pretty easy to vote on: if you run something that doesn't apply to the aff at all or the aff meets your interp, I will probably not vote for it unless the aff somehow drops it. This gets to my 2nd point - NEVER DROP THEORY OR T. This is a voting issue.

DA: UQ is very important, but it's often not debated often. If it's a UQ card from 2018, it's most likely non-unique and even if you argue everything else well I won't vote on the DA.

CP: Do impact calc, emphasize the internal/external net benefit so that it's even clear to a middle-schooler. Then I will believe that the CP is net better. Also, try not to run a CP with 5 planks, that's not good for clash, and it's a tactic that novices are not capable of handling.

K: I am familiar with basic, generic Ks (like cap and setcol), but I don't really know high theory like Baudrillard. I tend to lean towards policy so I don't like Ks but if you HAVE to run it bc you know nothing else, one suggestion: KNOW YOUR K. I only say this because there are a lot of novices who take varsity stuff and read it without properly understanding. Know the link, the impact, and the alt. Also aff you should never drop FW or else I would default neg even though they did a terrible job explaining the K. But remember that FW is not everything, so make arguments along with FW. Also, don't kick the alt.

K affs: Don't read it if you're a novice. I will automatically assume that you don't really know what you're saying.

email: leomokriski@gmail.com

background: did LD for 4 years in highschool, qualified for nats my junior year, qualified for TOC my senior year, did policy at Emory University. I'm majoring in math and philosophy.

aff should set up email chain asap

speaks: go as fast as u want if speech docs are sent, points for being clear and slowing down on tag lines and passionate speaking

disclosure is good

TLDR: tech > truth, i am a flow judge

1 - Cap K, Phil

2 - all other ks

3 - policy, stock, theory, t, fw,

4/strike - trix

Noncircuit: generally noncircuit ld the debate will either come down to competing frameworks or weighing impacts. When you're operating under utilitarianism, make sure to do explicit weighing of your impacts through the some combination of magnitude, timeframe, probability, reversibility, and cyclicality. The key is to compare your impacts with your opponents, and articulate why yours matter more. For competing frameworks, it is important to combine your arguments about why your framework is good with equally potent arguments about why their's is bad. It is important to leverage your framework to frame the opponents impacts out by saying 'this impact doesn't matter under X ethical theory.' It is also important to win offense under an opponents framework, so that even if you're losing the framework debate, you still have offense under their's. The most important thing is to address every argument your opponent makes, and to leave no ambiguity as to why I should vote for you. Remember to speak clearly and to signpost throughout your speeches.

K: if you're gonna read a k u hv a good understanding of it. i am comfortable judging most ks including pomo and high phil, when i was in highschool i mainly ran cap k, baudrillard k, and sometimes i ran sec ks, foucault ks, setcol k, and some others im probably forgetting. if u can't explain ur k or its theory of power then i will not believe it. performance is dope if its interesting! k-affs need to do lots of work to beat t-fw. For k-affs, i generally prefer advocating for different forms of education/fairness/debate rather than saying that education/fairness/debate don't matter and/or are bad. u can say squo debate/fairness or education is bad, but should try to offer a better version that the aff solves.

Cap K: saying "their authors are capitalist" is not an argument, u need to justify why their evidence is flawed. most "cap good" arguments can be debunked w/o cards just w/ marxist analysis imo, but they still require response. vague alts are cringey, and explain why cap causes extinction. also ROTB/J is p important

Policy: any stock things is cool, cps is cool, more than one conditional advocacy in ld is probably unfair, do ur thing.

T: one or two t shells in the 1nc is fine, i will evaluate it based on the flow. no rvi on T.

Theory: friv theory is kindy cringe, and so is spamming lots of theory shells in the 1n. theory in the 1ar is good strat, if u think there is abuse in the round running theory is a good idea. aff can win RVI if it is dropped or undercovered.

FW: running fw against k-affs is usually necessary, and i will evaluate it fairly, but it is not enough on its own. neg has to disprove the affs theory of power and prove stuff like "debate is good" and "fairness matters" or "education matters" which i will be pretty charitable towards.

Phil: love phil debate and really miss doing it, i am a phil (and math) major so i should hv a decent understanding of most phil args, which means if ur defending util u should prolly allocate a good amount of time to the fw debate. in highschool i regularly ran Kant/korsgaard, contracts args, hobbes, etc. i am also comfy with p much any other philosophers, i.e. sartre, camus, foucault, Derrida etc. just display a good understanding of their theories and be able to explain them well. author indicts; lots of philosophers (especially french ones) are very problematic ppl, but nevertheless i dont think its enough to just say X philosopher is racist/sexist/transphobic, u should also try to tie their x-phobia to their theory so that i find the arg more convincing, but if other team drops it i will still vote on it.

trix r4 kids, wont be evaluating these until halloween

"Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory." - Rishi Mukherjee

Ishaan Tipirneni, He/Him/His

Call me "Ishaan" not "judge" please.

Email: Ishaantipirneni504@gmail.com, yes put me on the chain

Education: Lexington '24 | Northwestern '28

Debate Experience: 4 yrs of HS policy debate, 3x TOC Qualifier

Conflicts: Lexington, Hawken

Prefs: First year out. I'm probably a worse judge than I was debater. I am probably not capable of judging a TOC-level KvK debate. I give out speaks based on the relative talent in the pool. Thus, if you debate like one of the better teams in the pool you will get high speaks and vice versa. I have ZERO topic knowledge, so please explain everything. I probably evaluate a debate more like a debater than a seasoned judge, so I won't think as critically about the round compared to other judges. I vote on the path of least resistance.

Top-Level:

Tech > Truth. Your ethos only matters for your speaks. Therefore, technical line-by-line is the basis of my decision.

I will boost speaks for both teams if the debate is efficient. I hate downtime. Nobody wants to spend 2+ hours in a round.

Post-rounding is chill if you genuinely believe you are right. Questions are always welcome.

Give me an easy way to vote for you. Judge instruction is the best way to gain my ballot. We both don't want intervention.

I am not afraid to vote you down because I don't understand your argument or I don't understand you.

I will "clear" you, but if it's multiple times, your speaks will tank.

I can be convinced of nearly anything in the confines of a debate round.

All of my debate opinions have been formed by ex-Lexington debaters who went for egregious arguments. This should answer any "should i read [x] in front of Ishaan" questions.

Specific Comments:

Policy Affs: I love creative policy affs (that dodge generics and are probably not topical). These are what I read virtually my entire career.

CPs: Condo is probably a reason to reject the team. Textual competition is sketchy.

DAs: Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are trash. Make sure your 1NC shells are highlighted with some sort of argument being made.

T: I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp, not just "they dropped x." I will vote on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad. Impact calc is HUGE for T debates and is necessary to get my ballot.

K-affs: I think these can be really good when creatively done, but please make your argument coherent and not just a preempt to FW. I usually find presumption a really good option against k-affs because they often don't make much sense at all. Make sure you have some reason to vote for you. In terms of the content, I am chill with high theory, race, cap or whatever amalgamation of political theory you call an aff, but it must be explained well.

K: I will vote on basically any K. On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW, so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me, so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link, depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad, try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links. I need a really good reason why aff teams shouldn't be allowed to weigh the plan.

FW/T-USFG: Fairness is an impact; debate is a game & much more. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I need good impact framing for this. K-affs shouldn't go for the W/M unless you have a plantext. I probably lean neg on this debate.

Idc how many off you read, but if your one-card Ks or two-card DAs aren't making arguments in the 1NC, you will not get leeway in the block.

If you give a final rebuttal w/ no computer and/or don't use all of your prep, I'll boost your speaks significantly.

If you make a GOOD joke about Misty Wang, Billy Blechman, Ila Dohrmann, Buck Arney, Maguene Moussavou/Jamie Levitan (Lex LM), or any ex-Lex debater I will boost your speaks. Jokes in general are good, but you better be funny. Debate is never that deep.

Misty Wang, She/her

2n/1a Lexington, MA '24 - University of Florida '28

Email: mistydebate@gmail.com

Subject line should be: Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Debate Experience: 4 yrs of HS policy debate, 2x TOC qualifier

This is a better, slightly edited version of Ishaan Tipirneni's paradigm. I'm a huge fan of Eleanora Lawrence.

Prefs: First year out. I give out speaks based on the relative talent in the pool. I have limited topic knowledge, so please explain everything. To be transparent: I was a policy debater so I am more accustomed to policy norms and rules, which is a technical mode of debate.

Top-Level:

Tech > Truth. Your ethos matters for your speaks. LBL should have thorough warrants and should not be one-liners.

I will boost speaks for both teams if the debate is efficient.

"I have been very unfond about the quality of arguments and evidence recently." - Jeffrey He. Highlight your cards please.

Give me an easy way to vote for you. Judge instruction is the best way to gain my ballot and limit intervention.

Not a fan of blantanly new arguments in rebuttal speeches.

Be clear + I flow on paper.

I take a while to make decisions for policy debates.

LD for FBK:

PLEASE FLOW. Good speakers in both the RR and tournament proper have lost because they missed a card on case.

I have not judged an LD round prior to this tournament, therefore am not super familiar with LD philosophy frameworks, nor LD conventions. I'm aware that you don't have to go in as much depth for theory arguments, so I'll try not to impose my own expectations. However, I do not want to vote on tricks.

PF for FBK:

I haven't judged a pf round before but I've taught it at a local camp. Please extend your warrants. Send card docs.

Specific Comments:

Policy Affs: I LOVE creative policy affs (that dodge generics and are probably not topical) - these are what I read my entire career.

CPs: "Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is probably not a voter" "Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive"

DAs: I haven't seen a good disad in a fat minute. Make sure your 1NC shells are highlighted properly. Explain the world of the aff with the disad as a story.

T: I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp, not just "they dropped x." I will vote on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad. Impact calc is HUGE for T debates and is necessary to get my ballot. Go line by line.

K-affs: I think these can be really good when creatively done. I usually find presumption a good option against k-affs. In terms of the content, I am fine with whatever theory you are going for, but it must be explained well. I will not do the connecting for you. Please make your k-aff topic related.

K v. Policy: It is super important for the neg to have case take-outs outside of framework. Please read cards for your theory. I must understand the link to vote. If the alt is super sketchy, I'm sympathetic to aff characterization of the alt, as well as theory arguments that follow. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links. I need a really good reason why aff teams shouldn't be allowed to weigh the plan.

K v. K-affs: I have not judged any of these rounds and I'm probably not qualified to judge a TOC-level KvK round. I'm going to need an in-depth explanation of each theory and I need an explanation of why the perm can't work.

FW/T-USFG: Fairness is an impact. I personally believe that debate is a game, but will vote on the line by line. I like hearing disads on framework, when teams collapse down on one impact (usually fairness or education), and case take outs. K-affs shouldn't go for the W/M unless you have a plantext. I probably lean neg on this debate.

If you give a final rebuttal w/ no computer in LD or policy I'll boost your speaks.

Deep breaths. Have fun, and good luck!