Tabroom.com

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Varsity PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jeanne Alailima Cambridge Rindge and Latin

Ulka Anjaria Cambridge Rindge and Latin None

Atreyi Basu Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 6:16 AM EST

Hi, I'm a freshman at Barnard but I judged, taught, and debated PF for 4 years at Lexington High.

- short version: weigh comparatively and extend your case in the last two speeches, signpost, frontline, and don't have anything new in your final focus that was not in summary.

theory/ks: if you're in varsity/jv, this is up to you. I will be super upfront and say that I am not super familiar with Ks and don't love theory/ks in PF in general so read at your own risk (but I will judge it). please do not run tricks/friv. If you choose to do so, you need to be very clear and show me that you know what you're talking about.

- weigh weigh weigh, including comparative weighing. If one team runs probability and the other magnitude, I have no idea which to choose. I love weighing & if you do not weigh, I have to choose which impact matters most and trust me, you do not want that.

- signpost. If I don't know where you are, I won't be able to write your responses where you'd want me to and your arguments aren't going to come across cleanly.

- tech>truth. that being said, if you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I will drop you. Also, I'm going to have a higher threshold for "aliens are invading the country" than "the sky is blue" so take that as you will.

- I will vote off the flow, so don't drop things and make sure to extend your argument completely (don't only extend the impact without the link chain or vice versa). Make sure you're frontlining and extending defense throughout. Collapsing in first summary or earlier will help you in this way. Extensions are important to me, please extend arguments, defense, and impacts.

- I am fine with speed/spreading if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, enunciate, make sure your opponents are okay too, always offer speech docs (same policy on format as cards), and signpost clearly.

- summary and final focus should be mirrored. I will not consider anything new in final that was not in summary and for an effective backhalf strategy, you and your partner should be on the same page.

- You must send cut cards and rhetoric if you choose to paraphrase case (honestly would rather you not). I will call for carded evidence if I feel like it is necessary for my decision, but in general, I will not be doing this often. All evidence should be in card format with qualifications, cites etc - if I/your opponent calls for evidence and all you have is a link, I'm not going to be super happy and it may impact my decision. No google docs or sending in email bodies please, PDF or word.

- cross shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating or responding. Please ask and answer questions in a CIVIL manner. However, I will not flow cross so if there's anything you want me to vote off of that happens in cross, bring it up in your next speech.

- timing speeches/prep time is your responsibility. I expect you to be keeping track of how much time you have and how much prep you have - after you take prep, just let me know how much you took. I understand that sometimes you don't finish perfectly on time, so if you're in the middle of a sentence and the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence given that it is less than ten seconds over. Please do not abuse this grace period, I will cut you off.

feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I feel like it helps you learn how you can improve in the future. i'm happy to give specific feedback after round as well.

You got this, have fun!! If anythings on my paradigm don't make sense to you, please ask me any questions. Debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary. Follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you.

email for evidence chain: atreyib18@gmail.com

Michael Brakaj Sharon

Dean Carman Arlington High School

William Caugherty McDowell HS

anne chang Bay Area Independent

Pavitra Chari Lexington HS

Northeastern University 2016

Lexington High School 2013

Update for Big Lex 2025

As of this update, I am returning to judging after about a decade. I debated for Lexington between 2010-2013 and judged at tournaments between 2011-2015. I primarily judged policy with occasional LD and PF rounds. Although I'm sure debate has evolved in the last 10 years, I'm hopeful the principles of good argumentation have not. I'm familiar with the structure of debate arguments but you should not assume I'm up to date on the current topics and jargon.

Overview

I will try and judge based on who I believe is debating better, regardless of any of the preferences below.

DON’T

steal prep (timer stops when the jump drive comes out of the computer)
clip cards - ask if you have any questions
be mean. assertive ≠ aggressive

impact calculus. Don’t just state why you avoid war, explain why this matters in the context of the other team’s impact. Impact calc is your best friend!
evidence comparison. I want you to tell me the way I should frame your cards in the round.
have fun! Stay in the competitive spirit, but be respectful of each other and enjoy yourself doing an activity that all of us love and sacrifice countless hours for.

If you have any questions about anything/want more elaboration on any of the following please feel free to ask before the round has to start!

Topicality

I believe topical plans are good. Have an interpretation, and prove that your vision of the topic is better than the other side’s. Explain why your interpretation matters and what it looks like. If you are running a non-topical advocacy, it will be difficult for you to win my ballot.

Theory

I usually think theory arguments are a reason to reject the arg, not the team - but if you want to present me with good arguments to why I should vote otherwise, I can be persuaded to pull the trigger on theory. Much of what I stated about topicality is applicable to theory - have an interpretation, explain why the argument matters, etc. Make sure your arguments are clear - it’s rather hard to flow 3-word theory arguments at the same speed as cards.

Kritiks

I’m probably not your best judge on the K, but if you’re good at it, don’t hold back - just keep in mind that I probably don’t know as much about it as you do. Refrain from dropping a bunch of abstract jargon that I don’t know the meaning of, and make sure I understand what the kritik is (if I’m sitting there with a confused look that’s a bad sign). Specific links and a coherent explanation of the alternative will probably help my comprehension. The better the kritik engages the aff, the better.

On the aff, same thing, generic frameworks and perms are not going to get you as far as specific answers would. Make sure you answer devastating tricks the negative should be arguing. I don’t think that Ks should not exist in debate. Framework is fine when you justify your methodology and don’t drop stupid arguments.

Clarity / Organization

I wholeheartedly agree with the following:

“I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the subpoints of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices amongst the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round.” - Sara Sanchez

Sam Chen Horace Mann School

Victor Chen Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 8:20 AM EST

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

Zachary Chen Boston Latin School

Mason Cheng Thomas S. Wootton

Joshua Cohen Newton South High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EST

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Lizbeth Contreras Summit HS

Cynthia Cooper Concord Carlisle High School

John Dalzell Newton South High School

Ishan Dubey Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 4:44 PM EST

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.

General

In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.

When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.

*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.

Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.

Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.

Evidence

Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.

Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.

Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.

If you believe someone is violating the rules, conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations. Producing evidence and/or a copy of the original source in a timely manner generally means 60 seconds, but this may change depending on the context. The punishment for not doing so is a loss.

If 3+ cards or >20% are missing an applicable author, author qualification, source name, URL, date, or title in the written citation, I believe that to be sufficient for a loss at tournaments that adhere to NSDA evidence rules. An oral citation that excludes the applicable publication year and/or author name will render that evidence inadmissible. These remedies will only go into effect if the debater(s) acknowledge them in the following speech and are themselves not guilty of the accusation. I am on a panel, you may continue debating, but my evaluation of the round will end there. You may make theory arguments for narrower violations (e.g., DOA). Proposing alternative remedies short of the ballot in speech is also fine.

Avoid paraphrasing. The introduction of any paraphrased evidence will cap speaker points at 28.

Expect me to have topic knowledge.

Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.

Defense is not "sticky."

Second rebuttal must frontline.

Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.

Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.

Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.

That said, I generally find "timeframe" more relevant than "try-or-die" and "link" more important than "uniqueness."

The Pro/Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.

I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.

Text and function are probably good standards for competition.

Theory

I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.

Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Jeff Freedman Deerfield Academy

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:34 AM EST

Hi, My Name is Jeff Freedman, I am a Lay parent Judge. I have been judging public forum debate for two years. I work in Marketing, however, my passion is for drumming, and my corgi, James.

I am able to flow to some extent, however, I would much prefer well rationed args., If you spread, or speak fast, I will not flow. Therefore, you should all be speaking at a rational pace where you can give me good reasoning for your arg.

I know how to flow, however that is almost the full extent of my abilities. I understand minimal lingo, and would much prefer you tell me for example why you outweigh your opponent, then give me some buzz word to explain it.

Truth>Tech, if there becomes disputes over evidence, and cards are called, I would Like to be added to the email chain. Even if there is no cards called, I would still like for debaters to create an email chain before round starts with me on it, my email is smallarmyjeff@gmail.com

Topicality: I do not understand any argumentation that is non topical, such as Ks and Theory. Even if a K is topical, I still do not understand it, and if you run one, you will be dropped.

In round procedure: In debate, the standard is that all debaters must be kind to each other. I expect that all debaters uphold this rule. For in-persons, I expect that who ever is speaking come to the front of the group and speak. For first and second cross this rule remains as well. Debaters may be seated for grand-cross. This doesn't apply for online tournaments.

Before Round: I would like for the AFF team to be seated on my right, and the NEG team on my left, for online tournaments, this doesn't apply. Before the first speech is given, I would like for each debater to introduce themselves. I ask that they say their name, whether they are first or second speaking for their team, and the school that they are debating for.

Rhetoric: I would like to see good rhetoric in specifically summary speeches. Good rhetoric may include references 80s music/bands. If the first speaker uses good rhetoric in summary, I would like to see that rhetoric extended in final focus.

I expect to see some good debate!

Jeff

Priya Gampa Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Aanya Ghosh Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 7:41 AM EST

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep. I don't care how you share evidence.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Not evaluating anything that occurred out-of-round besides disclosure. I will listen to CX.

I don't care if you tag-team/open/ CX or use flex prep.

Any defaults I do have (would like to think I don't have any) can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

New 2NR evidence: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to.

You need to share all evidence/cases BEFORE your speeches with me (and each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share - I have no preference

I would STRONGLY prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations/the card format in the speech doc when paraphrasing.

I care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot. Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly.

If one team is reading properly cited evidence and the other is not, I will be very sympathetic if that team points this out and makes it a reason to drop the other team for ev ethics reasons (but it needs to be a complete argument)

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is one of my favorite arguments.

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs- 1 try each
Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution- 1 guess per person
I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
Beat me at Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
W references in your speech (Nettspend, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

Venu Goli Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Atul Gupta Lexington HS

Donhee Ham Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

LE Hartmann Nightingale Bamford

Monica He Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 7, 2020 at 6:14 AM EST

Monica He

New York Medical College '23
Tufts University '17
Lexington High School '13

***UPDATE AS OF 1/15/2025 (Big Lex update)***

I literally just Googled this year's resolution, meaning I am completely new to this topic and have very limited topic-specific knowledge as of right now. A great place to demonstrate real knowledge about the topic would be during CX, and I will be both listening and learning. Please keep this mind. I have been out of judging for some number of years, but I do have significant judging experience in the past and have judged way more tournaments than is listed on Tabroom.

About Me: I debated for Lexington High School's policy debate team as a 2N/2A. I have judged at many national and regional tournaments. I have debated more as a 2N and I know the pains of being a 2N. For example, I will give some leeway to the 1A for the 1AR, as I know how time-pressed this speech could be. Use this to your advantage: do the 1AR well and you may easily merit a 30 for speaker points. I also know how much BS the 2AR can have -- don't ever resort to lying. Ever. The 2AR should be used strategically to summarize your arguments up and give reasons to prefer your argument/case/impact over your opponents'. This speech is awesome for speaker points and persuading my ballot. Often I vote Aff because of how convincing the 2AR was (of course because of the arguments too). Lying about the claims of a random card or that your opponents dropped this or that is a reason for me to severely dock your speaker points. I really don't want to do that. Don't make it a first.

Apparently, I have had a reputation in the past of being a "K-friendly former policy debater", which is hilarious but I'll take it. My interpretation of this is that I definitely have voted many a times for K arguments and have been pref'ed many times by K teams (but also by policy teams as well, being from Lex). My guess is that in my RFD I have probably noted that I would rather vote for well-articulated in-depth K arguments over superficial policy ones. I see nothing wrong with encouraging good debate practice and form. Frankly, I don't care what kind of argument you make as long as it's good and you do it well.

A few other tidbits about me. I studied anthropology in college and as such am very comfortable with K topics especially ones based in philosophy (I quoted Foucault in my personal statement for medical school). That being said, don't assume I know every K/philosopher out there. I am deeply passionate about debate and I carry lessons I have learned from the debate world with me even in my practice of medicine (I wrote about this in my residency application). I probably will not vote for "Debate bad" and likewise types of arguments.

My ballot goes to whichever team convinces me of their argument the most, regardless of whatever form of argument that may be. I only ask that you thoroughly and clearly explain your arguments and show me you really understand what your arguments truly entail of. Impacting your arguments beyond scripted impact calculus blocks would also be nice -- if you want to win my vote.

Be respectful. Debate well. Have fun.

How To [ ] My Ballot:

Win:
- Clash: Give me specific reasons to vote on your arguments as opposed to your opponents' arguments -- you can easily achieve this through goodevidence comparison, impact calculus, etc.
- Impact Calculus: This part of debate is so important and so key that if you choose to ignore this, you are almost guaranteed to lose my vote -- again, I don't care what argument you choose to run; I care that you impact your argument and give me a reason to pick your impact over the other team's impact. The same goes for framework -- if you choose to run a critical argument and lose the framework debate, then in my eyes, your critical argument is nonexistent. Please give me a reason to pick your framework over your opponents' framework. Otherwise, no matter how OP your K, DA, CP, etc. is, I can't and won't vote for you.
- Ethos: Won't win my vote alone, but if both teams have done the above and more and you have more ethos, I might just vote for you. That said, ethos certainly doesn't mean domination -- it means speaking in such a way that really appeals to me. Be sassy if you need to, but still know your bounds.
- Clarity/Good Organization: Makes it a lot easier for me to flow and to decide on my ballot. Whatever I don't hear/understand verbally will not go on my flow, and will, therefore, not contribute to your argument. I should be able to hear all the points of your 1AR, of your topicality flow, of your theory block, etc. If it happened to have been your kick-ass link card, then that would have been very unfortunate :( Don't expect me to automatically call for evidence if I miss something. I will ONLY call up evidence if there was evidence comparison and this debate is extended to the 2NR/2AR, or when I see it necessary for me to read into the validity of a card. Also, if you want to score a 30, do line-by-line. I LOVE line-by-line, and I will be more inclined to vote for you if you do a great job on the line-by-line.

Lose:
- Neglecting to Sign Post/Road Map: I shouldn't have to designate a section for this, but in the past I have been ignored in this simple request, and I have been throughly confused and annoyed. Please just do it. Not just so that I can flow your arguments on the right flow, but because it's a respectful thing to do for your opponents, your partner (if you have one), and I.
- Clipping Cards: DO NOT DO THIS. I consider it cheating not only debate, but also cheating your opponents and me. As a judge and a former debater, I would feel personally offended by this act. If you do this, the highest speaker points I give you will be at most a 24.
- Being Obnoxious/Disrespectful/Overly Aggressive: If you resort to any of this, I will not only severely dock your speaker points, but also stop flowing your arguments. Swearing is fine -- I'm a college student for crying out loud -- but if you're swearing unnecessarily in every.fucking.sentence, then I'll probably dock your speaking points, roll my eyes, and stop flowing.
- Stealing Prep Time: This is such a novice thing to do, and SHOULD NOT exist at all in non-novice debates. I will be less harsh with novices because I understand debate is a learning experience. That said, it doesn't mean it's okay for novices to do that. It is disrespectful, rude, and cheating. Stealing prep time will result in very low speaker points and will be noted when I am deciding on the ballot.

Specific Arguments

Theory
- I am more than willing to vote on theory IF it is argued properly. I believe that theory is an integral part of debate, and when used realistically, can be a lethal weapon. For example, if the Neg is running a billion CPs and a trillion Ks, then the Aff should definitely run theory and I would love to vote Aff on theory. The boundary for me is if the Neg is only running one CP or one K, and the Aff runs theory. The Neg is probably going to win the conditionality debate. If the Neg is running a CP and a K, the conditionality debate would be decided by you guys. In that particular case, I can go both ways. When you do run theory, please IMPACT your arguments. If you lay out all your theory points without an impact, I will be very unlikely to vote for you. It's the equivalent to having an argument but without an answer to the "so what?" clause. You must answer the following questions: Why should I care about your theory arguments? So what if the other team severs? Framing your theory arguments in the context of debate is the best way to get me to vote you on theory.
Topicality
- I will vote on T if and ONLY IF it is argued and structured properly. Most of us know that the T consists of the following: interpretation, violation, standards, and voting issue. If you want to win the debate on T, you MUST carry all of these in some way through the 2AR. You NEED to frame the debate on T, making sure to emphasize that everything else in the debate is irrelevant because the Neg is non-topical and WHY the fact that the Neg is non-topical important in the debate (and in debate in general). Not impacting your T arguments is asking for me to ignore your argument, even if you have the best interpretation or violation blocks ever.
Counterplans
- As I mentioned before, I was mostly a 2N, so I have a soft spot for CPs. In particular, I really like case-specific CPs because I believe they are more realistic and better for debate purposes. They promote clash and topic debate. They're awesome. Use them. When you're running a CP, NEVER forget to answer theory (e.g. condo), perms, and ALWAYS provide a reason for mutual exclusivity.
Disadvantages
- Case-specific disads are the best kinds there are. Being from Lexington, I have a soft spot for politics disads. They were the first kind of disads I learned in my novice year and I will always love them. I don't really buy the intrinsic bad theory argument, but if the Aff drops it, then it could be potentially devastating. However, if the Neg does NOT impact intrinsic bad, I still won't vote on it.
Kritiks/K Affs
- I am fine with both. What I am not fine with is super obscure Ks/K Affs that are NOT explained well. I am human too. I don't have a mental encyclopedia of all Ks and K Affs. Please don't assume I do. Please also keep in mind that I tend to err toward policy-oriented options, but I will vote on the K/K Affs if they are well organized and well debated. I will also probably give way higher speaker points to teams that do well with K arguments, as it is much more impressive to do this well for K arguments than policy ones. The alternative MUST be present in all Neg speeches and impact calculus should involve the framework debate and should give me a reason to vote you as opposed to your opponents. The alternative must also be legit. If your alternative sounds silly in theory, it will probably sound silly to me. And unless you have the ethos of Alex Parkinson, you probably will not end up convincing me that your alternative is legit.
Case
- This is where you can impress me a lot. Do really nice line-by-line and I will love you. Case is an awesome place for clash to take place, and I love clash. High speaks to whichever team does better line-by-line and/or better clash on case. Just so you know, I have not debated the current topic before, but I am familiar with some of the literature. Policy-wise I should be able to follow along relatively easily. If you throw something obscure at me and use debate/literature jargon excessively without first explaining them, I won't be able to follow you and I meant just stop flowing. Not a good idea. I highly advise against it.

Tieying Huang Scarsdale High School

Erin Jacques Avenues: The World School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:09 AM EST

Congratulations for participating in Speech and Debate!

I’m a debate enthusiast, and my leisure time is spent promoting the sport for all students. Whether you win or lose this round, you are developing competencies that will carry you throughout your life. Now for how to win my ballot.

I'm a FLAY (Flow /Laymen) PF judge, so while I flow the round, I expect a respectful and civil atmosphere— and make sure your narrative makes sense. In other words, don’t read a bunch of statistics to support arguments that don’t seem reasonable in the real world.

In my evaluations, I prioritize the following three factors, listed in no particular order:

1) Weighing: clearly explain the arguments made by both sides as early as the second rebuttal and throughout the remainder of the round

2) Warrant: provide logical reasoning behind the evidence presented and critically interrogate your opponents' warrants.

3) Clash/Crossfire: fully engage with and provide quality responses to the arguments made by your opponent, rather than simply disagreeing with them. With that said, don’t stress the crossfire. The crossfire is NOT going to make or break the round. At most, it may impact your speaker points. Thus, it's important to use that time to thoroughly interrogate and understand the opponent's narrative to have a meaningful exchange of ideas for the remainder of the round.

If evenly matched on all the above, perceptual dominance (i.e., tone, presence, confidence, and team dynamic) wins!

Automatic Loss:

Warning: If tempted to give false evidence, Don’t Do It!

Speaker Point deduction:

Icks:

Repeatedly (3 or more) asking opponents for cards. You might as well ask them to send you their entire case- SUS!
Looking only at the judge the entire round without ever looking at your opponent; I find it dismissive and rude to your opponent. It’s important to fluctuate your attention and consider both the judge and your opponent during the round.

Anaya Joshi Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 7:33 AM EST

anaya1joshi@gmail.com

Debated circuit PF for Lexington for 4 years, currently on NYU's policy team.

Strike me if you plan to read tricks or friv.

A quick note: Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socioeconomic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate allows you to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals to their individuality when presenting arguments, I'll drop anyone who reads arguments that may be sexist, racist, or discriminatory in any way. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament, and most importantly, respect yourselves.

Novices:

- Weigh weigh weigh, I evaluate weighing above all link-level clash (but remember you need to win your link to access the weighing).

- Make sure that your cards have WARRANTS, and if you don't have a card for a particular argument, be brave and give me an analytic. The more you can rely on your logic as opposed to cards, the better at debate you'll become.

- Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win than "the government is run by lizards".

- Have fun, you do you!

Everyone else:

Housekeeping:

- Please come into round preflowed.

- Set up an email chain with a subject line that is clear. Something along the lines of "Tournament Name-Rd#: Team Code (side/order) vs. Team Code (side/order)".

- You must send cut cards and rhetoric if you choose to paraphrase case. I will call for carded evidence if I feel like it is necessary for my decision, but in general, I do not care much for calling evidence beyond case if you are not spreading. If you are going faster, do not send evidence in the form of a Google doc. Do not send evidence as a link. Please send evidence only as either a word document or a PDF.

General:

- Read whatever you want.

- I'm a bit of a stickler for proper extensions, so please read blippy extensions at your own risk. I will be very receptive to "bad extension" claims made by your opponents.

- Do a lot of weighing/meta-weighing (not just for me, it's also strategic if you're lost/have time) and make sure it is all COMPARATIVE (i.e. don't say "we outweigh on scope" without actually taking the time to compare the # of ppl affected by your impact vs your opponent's impact). This is the most important part of the round for me, so please be thorough and don't treat weighing as an item to be ticked off on a checklist.

- Please start collapsing as early as possible in the round because quality>quantity especially considering short PF speech times.

- I'm good with any speed, so you can spread as long as you: make sure your opponents are okay too, slow down on authors, taglines, and analytics, signpost clearly, and always offer speech docs. If you get too fast, your opponents and I reserve the right to clear you.

- For framing, util is probably true-til, since it links into nearly every other framework and overwhelms them. That being said, I'm pretty receptive to other framing mechanisms when they are argued correctly. I would recommend a very deep understanding of your framing and embedded weighing (a prioris, link-ins, and any pre-fiat impacts). Please read framing in constructive.

- Defense is not sticky. I do not even know what that means.

Theory:

- No friv.

- I don't have any other specific preferences when it comes to theory- it's your round, so whatever is determined to be "in-round abuse" is to be determined by you only.

- My one exception to reading theory is when it is clear that you are using it as an easy win rather than because you genuinely believe some in-round abuse has occurred. I'm looking at big school varsity debaters reading crazy shells on freshly-graduated novices from small schools.

- I guess I default to CIs and no RVIs

K Debate:

- I'm quite familiar with most garden variety Ks -- cap, sec, fem IR, set col, etc. -- but try not to read anything beyond this range of literature. If you do choose to do so, please be very clear.

- Please please please actually tell me what the K does aside from "reject the aff/neg". If you read that as the full extent of your terminal impact, I will be very sad and will probably dock your speaks a little.

- Po-mo stuff (Baudrillard, Foucault, etc.) is also cool, I'll evaluate it.

Misc:

- I presume for whoever lost the coin flip.

- If both teams agree to debate a previous topic, you can totally do that.

- Feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I think it usually helps you learn how you can improve.

Speaks scale

I default 28.5 for novices and 28 for varsity

Below 27: you were abusive, you said something ___ist, you will be reported to tab

27.1-27.5: you made some pretty large strategic errors that lost you the round or you were a bit rude/annoying

27.6-28.0: slightly worse than average, you made some small and large errors, you were a bit hard to understand

28.1-28.5: average, you did what you needed to do but nothing exceptional. 50% chance that you won the round

28.6-29.0: better than average, you spoke clearly and passionately, you made the right strategic decisions, 60% chance you won

29.1-29.5: really good job. you didn't make any technical errors and your speaking was excellent. 90% chance you won.

29.6-30.0: crazy good job, 100% chance you won

Jeffrey Kahn Strath Haven

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 9:01 AM EST

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

Zahra Karim Lexington HS

Tushar Katarki Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Nagendra Prasad kautickwar Ridge High School

Kathleen Kernell Nightingale Bamford

Dana Lanciloti Newton South High School

Ella Layton Winchester

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 8:43 AM EST

Hi all!

Add me to the email chain- Layton.ella1@gmail.com

TL;DR- be respectful, be purposeful, don't make me think too much

General:

- I am good with speed as long as you are clear.

-Tech > truth
- Signposting is always appreciated.
- Be respectful, especially cross. Interrupting should be in moderation and should only be used if one person is dominating cross. Also, be nice to your partner, its a team event.
- Time- overtime by a couple seconds is okay if you are just finishing asking a question, answering a question, or finishing a sentence. - However, any new information, arguments, or questions after time is up will not be flowed. Also please time yourselves.
- I will disclose after the round (tournament permitting) and give feedback. Feel free to ask me questions both before and after the round!

Argument Preferences:

- I am comfortable with most arguments, but if you run prog explain it well and know what you're doing or it's obvious.
- I don't flow CX, but I do listen to it, so if you want something from CX on the flow, mention it in the following speech.
- Please don't bring up new responses in second summary, unless you are addressing something said in cross.
- Evidence based arguments are always preferred and will be evaluated over logic ones, however make sure your evidence is warranted, otherwise it won't be evaluated. A stat is not an argument, tell me why that stat matters.
- Please please please- if it comes down to 2 contradicting points with evidence, I will evaluate based on who explains to me why I should vote for their evidence.
- Weighing!! Weighing must be in summary to be considered and I believe this is the most important part of the debate.
- Collapse in summary, please don't extend 3 arguments. Addressing certain turns or points is okay, but please don't extend the whole case
- I want to think as little as possible as a judge so just make sure you explain everything well!

Sean Lee Horace Mann School

Alexander Lin Newton South High School

Christyn MacDougall Cambridge Rindge and Latin None

Sanjay Mallikarjun Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat January 16, 2021 at 10:39 AM EST

Hello,

I am a fourth year debater, having done 3 years of Varsity Public Forum and 1 year of Novice Policy Debate. Here is some important information about my preferences:

Speed: I can handle speed. If you do speak fast, make sure you are clear.

Weighing: I cannot stress this enough, the easiest path to my ballot is to weigh. If you and your opponents both don't weigh, I will have to weigh it myself.

Speaking during speeches: Don't talk to your partner during their speech or during 1st or 2nd crossfire. It often causes them to lose their train of thought. Also, they need to learn to be self sufficient through experience.

Evidence: I will call for evidence if I believe something may have been misrepresented or if you ask me to do so.

Progressive Argumentation: I have nothing against progressive argumentation. If you want to run a kritik or theory, go ahead, but make sure to inform your opponents that you are planning to do this.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 for speaks, and depending on your performance in the round, it can either go up or down. I won’t give below a 27.5 for speaks unless you are exceptionally rude to your opponent or misrepresent evidence.

Now, onto speeches:
Constructive: Make sure to have a clear link chain. Make sure to read your case clearly. If I can't understand you, I will let you know.

Rebuttal: I am not the biggest fan of debaters completing unread case arguments in rebuttal, but I will still flow it if you do so. I would like it if you started weighing in rebuttal. Don't waste time extending case arguments. Just focus on rebutting the opponent's argument and weighing, and if you give second rebuttal, frontlining. Signpost, it makes it easier for me to flow what you are saying.

Summary: I know with the three minute summary there is a temptation to go for all your arguments. Don't do it. Make sure to collapse, rather than going for everything in case. Extend offense- you can't win without it. Don't forget to weigh!

Final Focus: Make sure to extend the arguments which you think should decide the round, and weigh. DO NOT bring up new arguments. I will not weigh them.

Crossfires: I don't flow crossfire, but if an argument is conceded in cross, and the other team brings it to my attention, I will consider it in my decision. Be courteous to your opponent. Being rude will cost you speaks. During grand cross, make sure not to get to heated, and try to keep the conversation civil (the last thing we want is a shouting match).

Have fun debating!

Add me to the email chain: 21mallikarjun@lexingtonma.org

Purvi Mavchi Lexington HS

Ram Miller Newton South High School

Vishal Misra The Bronx High School Of Science

Thomas Moffitt Concord Carlisle High School

Sharan Mudgal Summit HS

Tatianna Palaguina The Bronx High School Of Science

Jigar Patel Lexington HS

Vinitha Ramnathan Lexington HS

Grisel Reyes The Bronx High School Of Science

Amelia Ritenour Byram Hills High School

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 3:05 PM EST

They/Them/Theirs

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

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

Sophia Jennell Robertson Horace Mann School

Last changed on Wed July 24, 2024 at 3:41 PM EST

Hey! i'm Sophia, i debated on the circuit for Cambridge Rindge and Latin for a couple years. add me to email chains, sophiajennellrobertson@gmail.com .

paradigm's pretty thorough, so take into account whatever you feel is relevant to you.

TLDR: tech>truth, collapse + weigh please, substance>prog cause i prob dont know how to evaluate your prog

if you're starting out, focus on:

collapsing-- choose 1 or 2 of your best arguments / contentions to focus on in summary and final focus. tell me why you're choosing this argument (why it's become the most important argument in the round). collapsing allows you to spend time on weighing...
weighing -- tell me why your impact is more important / bigger / more urgent / more long-term than theirs. this is MORE IMPORTANT than attacking their arguments, because good weighing ensures that even if they win their arguments, you can still win by telling me why yours are more important.
taking it slow -- quality > quantity ALWAYS. don't stress about tripping over your words or freezing up -- we've all been there.

for more experienced debaters:

flow/tech judge, tech>truth, run crazy arguments if you want.
comparative weighing + meta-weighing are key, i won't flow buzzwords like "magnitude" and "scope" unless you a) warrant them; b) tell me why they beat your opponent's weighing. pre-req weighing is great.
framework first; i'll eval the round through whatever FW you tell me to. i evaluate weighing next, then offense (but you can't win weighing without winning offense).
drop turns are great, weigh them well pls ("we gain access to the 50 million deaths" is not enough, you gotta re-warrant it and weigh itbecause it's now YOUR argument).
send your speech docs for evidence etc., but I WILL NOT FLOW OFF A DOC. i can flow pretty fast (and i quasi-spread as a debater) but if you're full spreading or SPREADING BADLY i probably won't catch it all.
ev ethics is key. please don't quickly google to find a card you claimed you had. don't cite obviously-biased think tanks, blog posts, or yelp -- give me peer-reviewed science :) i might intervene and look at ev after round, but please indict ev in-round for me.
cross -- i'm gonna listen, it's kinda the most fun part of the round. please don't be snippy (if you know me you're laughing that i wrote that) but be assertive, don't interrupt, and talk directly to me. cross is a time to a) get concessions; b) ask simple questions that hammer a point home; c) NOT let your opponent run out the clock. bring up stuff said in cross in speech or i won't flow it.
REBUTTAL:

• roadmap + signpost. if you're messy im gonna struggle to flow you.

• analytics are fantastic!! well-warranted analytics with evidence is great. well-warranted analytics w/o ev always always always beats rando dude on the internet. do i know this guy? is he biased? who is he??? be credible.

progressive args:

i can eval prog; didn't run it much when i debated, but as long as you warrant, weigh, + tell me exactly how you want me to evaluate it, all good
theory is fine if real in-round abuse happened. dumb theories are dumb but i'll still evaluate them
don't read prog on beginners (unless you're a beginner, but if you're a beginner prob don't read prog)
don't run theories claiming in-round inequity unless you've been put at a real disadvantage. if you're a high-coaching, high-resources, massive-b-file team running disclo on a small team claiming the round is "inequitable" rethink what equity actually means.

have fun + lots of love if you make an ice age reference.

Bailie Schaefer Poly Prep

Sangeeta Shroff Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Aman Siddiqi Sharon

Last changed on Fri October 4, 2024 at 8:38 AM EST

Big Lex Disclaimer: I haven't interacted with PF in a minute, so pls speak a little bit slower or I'll lose you.

TLDR will be bolded.

Debated PF for 3 years on the MSDL and national circuit for Sharon. I'm a standard tech judge.

Add me to the email chain: siddiqiamn6@gmail.com

If you plan to spread (>225 wpm), send a doc or I'll miss a lot of what you say. Slow down at tags and analytics.

Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!! If you don't, you run the risk of me flowing your implications the wrong way and confusing me.

If someone makes the round unsafe in any way (being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. in any way), I'll drop them with the lowest speaks possible.

Tech > Truth. I'll vote off the flow and what was said in round, but note that truer arguments tend to be easier to explain and win. Regardless, I'll intervene as little as possible.

Weighing (VERY IMPORTANT):

I look to the weighing first, then look at who wins the best link into said weighing. If no weighing is done, then I'll evaluate strength of link generally. If, for some reason, there's no offense at all, I presume neg.

Weigh often, and as much as possible. Don't just throw around weighing mechanisms and expect them to stick, give me warrants for why I should prefer your argument. Meta-weighing and link-weighing are also great and super underutilized in PF.

I think that framing/framework is just another word for weighing, but I like these debates. Please warrant your framework if you choose to run one.

Offense (Substance):

Read whatever you want, as long as it is warranted.

Please weigh turns. Unweighed turns are essentially useless because I need a reason to prefer your offense over your opponents' offense.

Offense you want to go for should be frontlined in the speech after responses were read against it. This means 2nd rebuttal should frontline, 1st summary should as well, etc.

Please extend all parts of your argument (UQ, Link, Internal Link, Impact) if you want to go for it. By Final Focus, I'll accept more blippy extensions, but extensions in summary should be detailed and include all necessary warrants.

Defense (Substance):

Defense is not sticky. This means you must extend any defense you want to keep on your opponent's arguments after rebuttal.

Please implicate whether your defense is terminal or mitigatory (i.e. whether your defense fully takes out your opponent's link or not). I want to intervene as little as possible.

Evidence:

I'm cool with paraphrasing (unless it's egregious), but you should still have cut cards for all of your evidence. Be ready to show evidence as quickly as possible, otherwise your speaks might take a hit.

The only time I will stake the round on evidence is if it blatantly violates NSDA rules. You should still mention misconstrued evidence, miscut evidence, etc. because I will drop any evidence that is used in such context.

Cross:

I'll be at 50% capacity during cross, but if there's something important that happened during cross (like a concession), mention it in speech. I don't flow cross.

Open cross is fine by me if both teams agree to it, same goes for skipping grand cross. Flex prep is fine too.

Progressive Arguments:

I feel pretty comfortable evaluating theory, though I'd much rather have a good theory round than a blippy one. If your shell is frivolous, then my threshold for responses will be much lower. I default to Reasonability > CI, No RVIs, DTD > DTA, Spirit > Text.

Any other progressive arguments (K's and other arguments of that sort) will be a toss-up for me. I won't automatically vote against them, but I really don't know how to evaluate these arguments well, so run them at your own risk.

Don't run prog if you're not in the varsity division.

Other:

I'm pretty generous with speaks, I average around 29

+0.5 speaks for an ATLA reference

Note that a lot of my judging philosophy can be altered with warrants in round, except the prog stuff (for theory, you can argue for paradigm issues that I don't default to, that's fine)

Reach out to me if you have any other questions.

Rishabh Singh Livingston High School

Dasha Smirnova The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 4:59 AM EST

FOR NYCFL BRONX: I have no policy experience. Plz debate accordingly

If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)

Freshman @ Columbia, previous PF captain @ Bronx Science.

dmsmirnova1@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

I will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check-in time and if you do not show up preflowed.

If you don't cut your cards, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).

I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

General

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.

Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Metaweighing is great, do it.

I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.

I like SV and I ran it a lot when I was a debater.

I'm most familiar with non-T identity Ks (fem, asian, queer), cap and sec. I read non-T fem on the circuit. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.

Theory

I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. That being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me".

If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments!).

Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)

Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev

Other things

Dont be rude

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.

Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene

Casey Stevens Waring School

Natalie Strintzis Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EST

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Craig Swartz Germantown Academy

Brenda Turney Winchester

Ria Vasishtha Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 8:58 AM EST

sophomore in college & I debated in PF during HS as second speaker - happy to give advice/answer questions at the end of the round.

for evidence- 1) add rv2529@barnard.edu to the email chain w this subject line: tournament name - rd # - school team code (side) v. school team code (side), 2) please send docs in the form of pdf (preferably)/word doc -- really don't like google docs/sending directly into the email chain bc it makes centralizing everything worse.

from there, these are things to keep in mind:

--while I can follow speed, please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. that being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

--TIME yourselves. I beg.

--for elims-if there's a lay on the panel, please please adapt speed/args to the lay and not to me. please make the debate accessible/understandable for them.

--in both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

--for 2nd rebuttal, frontline terminal defense & turns.

hint: I like link-ins from case & preq. args a lot. BUT I don't like when teams use their case args as the only response ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate. interact w the individual warrants and links.

--make it SUPER CLEAR what you're going for in summary & do all the necessary extensions (contentions, blocks, etc). weigh weigh weigh. meta-weighing is also great (tell me which mechanism is better).

--not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.

--tech or not: the final focus speech is a good time to SLOW DOWN and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.

--I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

--clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

--I prefer topical debates but I'm OPEN to theory and progressive arguments when ran well. that said, I'm not super familiar w a lot of these so run it to me like you're running it to a parent (make your points VERY clear & accessible).

Joe Vaughan Scarsdale High School None

Tianyi Wang Strath Haven

Last changed on Sun October 6, 2024 at 12:58 PM EST

put me on the email chain: tywang2020@gmail.com

previous experience: debated policy @ strath haven in 2016-2020 but haven’t really been active in the debate community since then

disclaimer: I have not listened to spreading in a gooood hot second (and will probably track your speeches so much better if you don't if I'm being so honest) and I also have not heard any rounds on either LD, PF, or Policy topics this year so taking time to explain things is a good idea

general things: please disclose!! timing and such should be done by teams themselves! being extremely rude in cx or speeches will result in reduced points!!

==================================================================

LD / PF

- I have very limited experience with LD/PF or this topic, so be careful to explain things thoroughly

- speed and most arguments (high theory is a little confusing but if you can explain it well go for it) are fine, but I do really value good extensions and warranted out args

==================================================================

Policy:

when I was in high school, I usually debated/went for more policy args, but K rounds were always interesting and nowadays I will vote for anything you can really convince me on

specifics args:

disads/counterplans -- very familiar with these as a whole and are good // don’t really know the ones for this year’s topic but as long as you frame and have nice overview/extensions you should be more than fine

impact turns -- love to see these pulled off well, but careful to take time with them and really explain all the components and how they interact with everything in the round

k's -- I am pretty familiar and open to the common Cap, Security, Bio, etc. args. personally I would stay away from high theory args with me unless you think you can explain them exceptionally well. I do believe that the k has to have specific args and links to the aff. I will weigh the aff against the K unless framed otherwise and so case turns against Ks are definitely something to consider.

k affs -- I never ran these in highschool and would often go T or Cap against them. i'm also open to these and will vote for them, and i also believe that the neg does have to interact with aff specific answers

t/fw -- fairness and education are both important impacts, but make sure to explain how the team has caused these abuses. make sure abuse story is clear. good interp/counter interp debates (and TVAs!) are convincing to me. I usually stand as a policymaker unless you frame otherwise and unless told otherwise the ballot is usually just a win/loss (but good argumentation can change this).

theory -- I would definitely prefer to vote on the substance, but if abuse is evident or theory is completely dropped (with good explanation on why I should reject the team), this is a viable option.

==================================================================

Huijun Wei Richard Montgomery High School

David Yastremski Ridge High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EST

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Patrick Yi Avenues: The World School

Anthony Zahtila Summit HS

Login to Tabroom

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Varsity PF Paradigm List

Judges