Tabroom.com

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tobi Abubakare Boston Debate League

Carl Albano Mamaroneck High School

My name's Carl. I'm a Varsity Debater at Mamaroneck, and I go by he/him.

Add me to your email chains- contentiononeiscyberattacks@gmail.com

Main important stuff:

FLOW. If you don't flow your opponent's speeches, don't expect me to flow yours. Plus, show me your flow at the end of the round and if it's got all the important stuff I'll boost your speaker points by 0.2.

CLASH. DO THAT! #1 Novice mistake (I was guilty of this myself) is not clashing enough. If you don't properly clash with your opponent's arguments and they properly clash with yours, you will almost definitely lose. Impact calculus is also a must-do!

SPEAKING. I know you all want to get faster, but don't let trying to speak fast make you completely incomprehensible. I've been doing debate long enough that I can handle some speed, but try to make your speaking clear. If not, I may miss arguments. Off the flow speeches are also not only really cool, but will improve your debate skills- if a 2NR or 2AR is made entirely off the flow, the speaker gets +.5 speaker points. Doing good line-by-line is also +0.2 speaker points.

I am TECH > TRUTH within reason. If you don't know what this means yet, it means I will vote for arguments you win on in round, even if I think it may be less accurate than you argue in real life. That doesn't mean you can just get away with lying, though, and hate speech will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Also, just be respectful. Debating as a novice is incredibly stressful, so don't make it worse for each other. Disrespecting opponents or reading ad hominem arguments will lower your speaks heavily and may result in a loss. Yes, that means be respectful and honest during crossex and don't interrupt each other. I shouldn't have to explain this.

Feel free to joke around a bit, though! Debaters are usually too rigid in round, and some fun would not go to waste. If you make me laugh, +0.1 speaks. Before you ask, no it does not stack. Just don't let your jokes come at anyone else's expense.

Don't steal prep either. If your opponent then makes a convincing case that stealing prep should be a voter and I know you did, I will likely vote on it.

Feel free to ask me about my RFD, but don't postround.

All of these are just preferences. If you win an argument, I'll vote on it.

(Unless it's absolutely repugnant and I feel horrible doing so; Please don't make that the case)

Specific stuff:

CASE.

Nothing crazy here- it's best to extend all your case through the constructives, but I recommend only going for a single advantage.

Explain your plan very well- assume I know nothing about your aff going into the round.

Turns are a very powerful tool, and don't forget that you can use them.

T/CONDO.

I'm open to creative interpretations of T, just make sure you actually argue the actual impacts. "They don't fit my interp!" isn't good enough- how does this unconditional aff make debate worse?

Similar on condo- it's not enough for the aff to say that the neg has too much conditional offcase. Why is that a bad thing? If you win this, you can win the argument.

K/K-AFF.

I love a good kritik that can broaden my understanding of its theory. In practice, though, I hold them to a high standard- don't bother reading one in a round unless you can explain its theory of power, give it a convincing link and defend it well in a framework debate.

Speaking of framework, I consider it to be a policy aff's strongest tool against the K. I'm pretty open to any framework argument, as long as you put proper justification behind your interpretation.

I'm not as familiar with K-aff debate, so read it at your own risk. I've debated against a few and understand how they work, but trying to keep track of every single one is a sisyphean task. If you're running one, please explain it well and I'll do my best.

I know it makes you feel smart, but using so many unexplained esoteric buzzwords that your whole speech is incomprehensible to anyone who isn't a diehard fan of your fave niche French philosopher is not helping you.

COUNTERPLANS.

I love a good counterplan debate, but I'd advise making giving your counterplans a clear net benefit out of the 1NC.

I'm usually cool with PICs if you can convincingly argue that they're competitive. I'll hold them to a high standard, though, so do so at your own risk.

Multi-plank is ok but make sure to explain it well- those things get confusing.

DISADS.

Basic stuff here. Do impact calc, and incomplete DAs will lead to significant leeway being given to the Aff against it. A disad link chain is a story, so tell it like one (especially in your 2NR).

OTHER THEORY.

I'd prefer if you didn't run hidden voters. I'll begrudgingly vote on one, but as my friend Sahil put it they are cowardly and make for boring debate. If they ask you in crossex which voters you read and you don't mention one, I am removing it from my flow. I'm neutral about most other theory arguments.

Don't just fling around buzzwords- I'd like to hear some explanation of what they did wrong and why that's bad.

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm.

All being said, don't be too hard on yourself. Regardless of your win/loss ratio, even being here debating is a testament to your skill and effort.

Felix Apfaltrer Mamaroneck High School

Mahalia Anne Brown Boston Debate League

Anagha Chakravarti Lexington HS

Andy Chen The Bronx High School Of Science

Dani Chung Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 8:31 AM EST

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

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

In Round (General)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kara Dillon Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 11:31 AM EST

Hey I'm Kara

Please add me to the chain: karadillon07@gmail.com

Mamaroneck '25, third year debater, pronouns are she/her

Policy debater, always been a 2A--

- treat me like a lay judge LOL

- Tech > truth

- do what you are most comfortable with

- be kind-- wont tolerate in round violence

- CX -- dont be rude -- cx is very important, know your aff, just dont be annoying. Interrupting and talking over people, being rude is different from being convincing

- plz write the ballot for me, be as convince as possible so i dont botch the ballot. top of 2nr and 2ar should have comparison, make statements about why im voting aff or neg.

K affs

justify why you are reading the k on the aff, should be related to the resolution in some way. Explain why your aff comes first. I am not versed in high theory, please take extra time explaining it and its relation to the debate space. Explain why the ballot solve/weigh the importance of the ballot/how your model of debate solves. Dont just say buzzwards-- assume I'm dumb because I probably am. Give me an explanation

Impact out disads on FW/ explain why they matter

Framework + T

I often read FW or T in rounds-- I will vote on either.

counter interpretations should have comparison, explain why your interp is better. Have a clear violation or ill default to we meet.

KvK debates

As a policy debater-- ive never been in a KvK debate so please do more explanations

Explain your advocacy, explain buzzwords, case debate is important

Policy Affs

Please act like I dont know how your aff works, truth is I probably dont. Start explaining your long internal link chain to me during cx and your rebuttals, especially if its kinda iffy or not obvious.

Your entire 1AC is a justification for your way of understanding the world. Use that in K debates – don’t get distracted from talking about what you know best.

I tend to read policy with a lot of law mentions.

DA's + CP's

Good with DAs, CPs, any combination. Your CP should have a clear net benefit (internal or external) by the 1NC. I don’t love CPs with tons of planks, especially because I usually forget what a lot of those planks were by the block. If you read 10 off, I am going to feel bad for the aff.

K vs policy affs

links are super important-- make inround links and true links, impact them out, and explain why they turn case. Individual links on the K are like mini disadvantages to the aff. Specific links are important, state bad links are probably not the smartest if thats the only thing you have. Explain your links-- explain why links of omissions are bad if your the affirmative

Alts are often neglected in K v Policy rounds, plz explain why your alternative solves the K-- explain your alts.

Framing – if you’re going for util arguments, I am probably persuaded more by avoiding mass biological extinction being good to the extent that people can make their own choice about their own value to life rather than just preserving future generations.

Theory

Prefer spending some time sitting on these arguments rather than just one-liners i.e. “severance is a voter” or “no perms in a method debate”. Explain why I should care-- dont just say buzzwords.

(addie lowenstein inspired paradigm)

Leo Federspiel Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Mon October 28, 2024 at 1:20 PM EST

lxfdebate@gmail.com

Team Code: Mamaroneck FC. Class of 2026. he/him. Qualified to the Policy TOC 2x. You can call me "judge."

---SHORT---

Tech > Truth (I'll vote for anything unless forced not to by tab), offense/defense, so don't change your strategy because I'm in the back.

Speed is fine, but I can't flow what I can't hear.

---LONG---

Note: These are just predispositions, and can easily be swayed.

Top Level:

Inserting rehighlights is fine.

Callouts are bad.

Have less than 15 seconds between stopping prep and your order.

Don't have to send analytics.

PTIV is hard to beat.

Fairness is an impact (more strategic than clash as form-DAs become dominant).

Debate is a game and we want to win.

Against microaggression arguments, tab solves is very persuasive.

Competing interps > reasonability.

ASPEC is kinda good on this topic.

CPs:

Condo: Good. It's a practice, not the number of condo. I'm good for neg (and aff) terror.

Lean towards functional competition over textual and functional.

Positional competition is bad.

Theory < competition unless there is a good angle against arbitrariness.

Presumption flips aff.

I will judge kick the CP.

Severance perms are not a reason to reject the team.

Ks:

Trust that I won't hack against you. If you win on the flow, I'll vote for you.

On FW, I will pick the better debated interp, not a middle ground.

Some long words are too long.

Ontology for a lot of arguments seems plainly wrong.

Impact turn if they defend an alt (cap good).

DAs:

Mostly normal thoughts here. Do impact calc (fine if it's in later speeches, just do it).

Willing to vote on presumption if turns-case is dropped.

Impacts:

S-Risks are good, but don't read them if you're aff.

Default to util. Still good for others like nihilism/neg util/Kant.

Nuke war probably doesn't cause extinction but that doesn't mean spark auto-wins.

Heg, space col, and growth are all better than alternatives.

---ABOUT ME---

As of writing this, I am a junior (third-year debater) at Mamaroneck High School. I was born and raised in the northeast. As aff, I read policy affs with extinction impacts. As neg (I am a 2N), I go for process CPs, topicality, and impact turns mostly, but Kant and the 1 card Ks are very much prepped (I'm scared to commit). Against K-Affs, I went for topicality: framework: United States federal government. We are terrorists, especially in elims. I also know too much about bad arguments like Kant, wipeout, etc. because silly things interest me. If you're still reading, go for hypo-testing, Baudrillard, and the logic impact if you want me to vote for you.

Reja Haddad Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 5:57 AM EST

I would like to be on the email chain:

@gmail.com m325rh <---switch these around, I do this so I don't get spam

General debate things:

Try to make the round as easy for me to vote on as possible, at least 20 seconds at the top of your last speech to tell me what to look at so I know what you think I need to look at more closely and the general story of the round to help me make sense of my flow. I like lots of judge direction and really don’t like making up connections for you, so a great way to make sure I’m looking at it the way you are, telling me a clear rfd would be very helpful

I’ve been debating on this topic for a while so I’ll probably know most of the stuff you’re talking about, but I won’t do any work for you so make sure you make it clear what you’re talking about and how it applies to the round.

When I say open cross one partner does like everything, so until I delete this from my paradigm I'll be asking for closed cross.

I will default to utilitarianism and debate being a game unless told otherwise

Tech>truth

Case:

Please do some case debating please. I’m down to vote neg on some nice link turns and things like that. There isn’t nearly enough case debating around and I think that is a wasted opportunity, affs get away with murder and I would love for them to be called out.

DA:

Very strong on this topic; I like a clean story that makes it easy to understand what I’m voting for. Using the disad to take out case solvency is awesome, just make sure it’s clear what specific parts of case you’re taking out.

CP:

I don’t generally love counterplans on this topic, but if you can make it competitive and theoretically justifiable then I would love to vote on a solid counterplan.

Please extent an interp, violation, and standards clearly in your overviews.

Make sure to do impact calc with your standards. Why does fairness/clash/education matter? Why do you access their standards better?

Make sure to explain the thesis clearly so I understand it, otherwise, if the other team explains it in a way that makes sense I'll believe them.

Make sure you extend all parts of the K unless you want to kick the alt in which case go for it, I'll be down to vote on basically any way you want to read it as long as I understand what I'm voting for

Kaffs

Making the thesis clear and weighing against T is your best way to my ballot. I'm down to vote for it but you must make sure my ballot does something, or if it does nothing why it should still go to you, and say why the TVA doesn't let you read your theory or why reading it under the TVA takes out some form of solvency

I'm also down to vote on rev rev debates, but try not to make it too messy

I'll default to fairness being an impact, but you are welcome to say why it's not or why whatever you do outweigh

Theory

Condo is a reason to reject the team, for anything else you'll need to give reasons to get it up to that threshold.

Needs an interp, a violation, and standards, every single time or I won't evaluate it (this goes for things like severance too)

Make sure to slow down a bit if you know you are fast

Saayali Joshi Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 4:21 AM EST

About Me:

I am a junior at Lexington high school, third year policy debater, and new to judging.

She/Her.

My name is pronounced sigh-lee like kylie, but I'm fine with judge, etc.

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

Please remember to stay kind and respectful throughout the debate!!

General Debate Stuff:

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a reason to reject the team.

Give the order and signpost!! Very important to keep the flow clear.

Tech>Truth - but I won't dismiss truth>tech args right away. Just impact it out.

A dropped argument is not a true argument! But it does give you a leg up on my end - explain why the arg is true/has an impact, and tell me why they shouldn't be allowed to respond. Conversely if you dropped something, it's ok, just pick it up in the next speech.

Give good judge instruction - tell me how to frame my ballot and why you win

No new args in the 2r’s - unless you provide a reason.

Impact calc at the top of your rebuttals!! (PS for novices - impact calc is not a new flow)

Don’t steal prep - or do, it'll dock your speaks.

I have good topic knowledge, feel free to use jargon and acronyms

I’ll always vote on try or die - even a 1% chance of saving us from extinction/whatever impact is enough of a reason to do the advocacy.

Don’t drop case!!

Not super knowledgeable on K lit - please explain ToP pretty well

Framework makes the game work!!

KAff:

Again, not super knowledgeable on K lit, but I'll try my best.

!! Explain how you solve and why the ballot is key !!

Do good internal link debating.

T comes first on the flow.

CPs:

Good with process/agent cps

Don’t add lots of planks and then kick them all.

1% of nb o/ws

DAs:

Give a good link story, and impact it out.

TLDR:

Impact stuff out, give good judge instruction, and keep anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc. off the flow.

For PF/LD

honestly don't have too much knowledge on this - I'm pretty lay

but try your best, and maybe don't use too much jargon.

Speaks:

+0.1 if you show me your flows after round

+0.1 if you make me laugh

+0.1 if you ask questions after/show me you read my paradigm

Drixxon Kyser Newark Science

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:12 AM EST

Update for 2023: College Junior

Formerly Debated as Devin Kyser

Currently go by Drixxon Kyzar. Both Dev & Drixx are fine, I really don't mind.

email chain: davk2300@gmail.com

Paradigm:

If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear.

Will vote on Kritiks and Theory Shells as long as you explain them well. Not a very big fan of tricks, but I won't vote you down for it.

Please keep things cordial and respectful. I understand that Debates can get very intense, but it's important to attack someone's case rather than their person.

Sign posting is highly valued, as it makes my job easier, and is appreciated when I see that your case and motives are organized.

2024 Revised Paradigm:

I'm a product of Newark Science. You can refer to my former coach's paradigm as a basis for how I'll judge.

Speed
Be clear. Pretend I don't have your doc. For most topics, you can spread as fast as you want.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, clear tags are extremely important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory is to make it make sense. I'm not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

Jamie Levitan Lexington HS

Queen LouAllen Newark Tech High School

Terrence Manderville Weequahic High School None

Maguene Moussavou Lexington HS

Last changed on Fri September 13, 2024 at 8:13 PM EST

Maguene (Muh-hane) Moussavou

Lexington '25

Email: immaculatebaboon@gmail.com - add me to the email chain please have it ready before the round starts

Email chain title: "Tournament name - round number - team [AFF] vs team [NEG]"

Top level comments

PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE EFFICIENT---AS LITTLE DOWNTIME AS POSSIBLE! (I will boost speaks for both teams) TIME YOUR PREP, SEND OUT THE EMAIL CHAIN ON ROUND START

Start The Round on Time.

Nothing in this paradigm matters too much, don't try to change how you debate to appeal to what you think I want to see based on my paradigm, do what you do and I'll evaluate it

Give me an easy way to vote for you -- judge instruction is VERY GOOD and needed in final rebuttal -- We both don't want judge intervention which is the alternative if I'm not given instruction

Give a roadmap before every speech, it's very helpful for organizing my flow and would look like, "first the IRS DA, CP, then case", say "and" or "next" to signal when you're going onto another card

Please signpost it makes the flow a lot less hard to evaluate post-round, this looks like saying when you're going onto a different argument or answering the opposing teams argument ("Now the counterplan") or flagging the subpoints you're answering (ie. in 2nc saying: "2ac 4...") helps me know directly what you're answering on the flow

top of 2nd rebuttal: why you win the round (15-30 seconds at most)

TECH >TRUTH, If you need to give up speed to be clear do that especially when online

Big fan of clash and line by line with sufficient warranting as opposed to meaningless one liners

I will pretty much vote on anything if it's debated well as long as its not problematic - I will not vote on it if it is barely in the rebuttal speeches (ie. I will not vote on multi-actor fiat if it's only 5 seconds of the 1ar)

Teams should demonstrate strategic decision making, for the neg that's how they collapse the debate in the block and not going for everything in the 2nr, on the Aff its understanding must-wins and pieces you don't really have to answer coming out of the block/grouping arguments

Overall I'm fine for any argumentation and what reads below are just thoughts.

Policy Affs: I read a policy aff my entire novice+sophomore year and now switch off between policy and k-affs - They are obviously a good argument. Affs should stay consistent with explanation of solvency throughout the round and neg teams should hold them to cx responses better.

CPs - It is definitely possible to get really creative with CPs and that's what makes them fun. Adv CPs good. PICs are probably theoretically illegitimate without a VERY GOOD reason as to why the reading of a certain word or idea is bad. Fine voting on condo, judge kick is good

DAs - Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are really bad. I can vote aff on 0 risk of the DA. If you’re pairing the DA with the CP, make sure to explain why the CP doesn't link to the DA. This applies to nay other argument but do more than just regular impact calc but actually compare the DA impacts to the other impacts in the round and why I should prioritize. If there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w

T - I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp not just "they dropped x." I'm not opposed to voting on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad.

K - Usually Affs lose when they go for the perm because it is virtually impossible without sufficient no link or a link turn. Instead, focus on extinction o/w, disproving the theory and winning that fairness matters and O/W.

I have an extremely low aff threshold for winning vs nonblack teams reading pess

On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is so very important, the more specific the better and it means you get out of what they'll say on FW. Alts are usually bad, try to make yours actually say/do something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links.

FW/T-USFG - Fairness can be an impact or internal link, neg teams should go for clash, education, or testing a lot more. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I really need good impact framing for this. A compelling neg team on this will explain what makes a fair debate, how the opps impeded this, how their model ensures fairness and why that matters for things like participation, debateability, etc.

K-affs: These can be really interesting with all the ways they can be deployed creatively outside just a preempt to FW, although having the 1AC be about 60-75% a FW preempt is strategic, I prefer these to have a coherent argument and also a justification for why talking about the aff is preferable to talking about IPR, I think the justifications for not defending the topic are far stronger this year than last. Aff teams should aim to impact turn other FW standards like clash and education I'm familiar with most content so run whatev. Debate is a game, can impact subjectivities

Theory

I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Generally, I think perf con is not a voter (but can be a TKO to the K on subjectivity) and TOO much condo is bad but I can be EASILY swayed in the other directions.

Show me your flows after round for +.1 speaks

Ishaan Tipirneni has had a profound influence on my debate views, he has aided me greatly in achieving my 2x TOC Qual, and has bestowed upon me a vast wealth of knowledge to aid my understanding of debate, thus, I vehemently agree with every aspect of this intelligent mans paradigm

Malachi Muhammad Newark Science

Sonal Setty Lexington HS

Akira Smith Boston Debate League

Nolan Smith Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 5:34 PM EST

nolan smith

he/him

3rd year varsity at Mamaroneck High School

add this email to the chain---twoaycee@gmail.com (novices please don't make your debate email this cringe novice year I'm looking at you 2A's).

For reference---I agree with everything on Jake Lee's paradigm.

Experience---2 years at Michigan Debate Camp, gone to nearly nearly 20 tournaments, and 2 bids to the Tournament of Champions this season (October)

Pre-round stuff---introduce yourself to the opponents and say one thing that makes you happy (other than debate you nerd). Debate seems daunting and stressful as an activity at first, but once you let that go, you can find out how much you love the activity. Remember that losing does not mean that you aren't "cut out" for debate. Losing is the most teachable moment for improvement in debate and as someone who tends to forget this, remember it's not the end of the world and there's almost always next round and next tournament.

I am tabula rusa. This means that I will not adjudicate things outside of this round and that I will try my best to let go of any personal biases and will not adjudicate anything that has happened outside of the round.

I went to camp so I'm familiar with a lot of the topic jargon so you don't need to explain that stuff to me like I'm a 5 year old. Still know your case as well as you can if you want to win+get good speaks.

If you show me your flows after the round (and show me you actually flowed the round lol) +.2 speaks.

I’m good for k’s and policy. I have ran and love arguing both.

BE CLEAR. As someone who was unclear for a long time it just makes your debating worse and makes it harder for everyone in the round (including the judge). I would rather you talk slow like a lay debater than spread incoherently.

T/L---Thoughts on debate---tech>truth I’ll vote on anything (no racism+sexism+any ism’s good) anything else is interventionist. If you want me to vote on anything you’re going for, have a warrant and an impact (you can’t just say it’s dropped!).

K---

k's are fun. The more you engage with the plan, the more likely you are to win. As a 2a, debater, and judge, I'm tired of people doing zero engagement with the aff and going for Framework and any risk of a link! I'm likely to be persuaded that's a bad model of debate by the aff (just mooting the entirety of the 1AC and a reps link). So PLEASE, please engage with the aff as much as you can. I will obviously still evaluate the flow and if you win you win, I'm just saying the more you engage the more likely you'll win. I've debated against and for a ton of the mainstream K's (Cap, Set Col, Pess, Baudi, Moten, Plasticity, etc) but if you're running high theory then please do explain it to me like a 5 year old.

T---

T is fun. It's extremely strategic but pls format your 2NC with O/V, interpretation, violation, standards, then LBL. I am a good judge for T only when you really explain everything, because messy theory debates end of leaning aff because of the 2NR time skew. PTIV is not as joever as some other Mamaroneck debaters think. Please only extend T-Subsets if it's dropped.

DA---

DA's are fun. love them. Please have a full shell in the 1NC! I'm tired of teams forgetting to put in a link or uq. 2NC/1NR should should with an impact overview, turns case, then line by line. It's also good to extend your UQ, L, and I/L if they go dropped. More explanation is always good because these debates are super strategic. I am a good judge for link, I/L turns case, and UQ overwhelms the link.

CP---

I love these debates. Please remember to insert the plan text, because I will be very sad if you don't. Please articulate solvency beyond "sufficiency framing". CP competition debates are very fun. If you're reading a process cp, be very prepared for these debates.

C/T---

Case turns are veryyy fun. If you win going for a case turn and case defense, you will get very good speaks (29+).

All in all, do what you do best, and HAVE FUN! So many people forget that debate is a game...

Peter Susko Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:09 AM EST

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

I judge around 2-3 performance debates a year. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Alayah Tedder Boston Debate League None

Likhita Thiriveedi Nashua HS South

Aanya Vaswani Lexington HS

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 4:21 AM EST

Aanya Vaswani

Lexington ‘26

She/her/hers

Put me on the email chain: aanyavaswani1@gmail.com

I am a third-year debater at LHS, 1A/2N. My typical 2NR’s consist of the Cap K and core topic Das, PIKs against K- affs.

These preferences can easily be changed by good debating so don’t feel pressured to change your 1NC/1AC based on this paradigm – these are just suggestions

TECH > TRUTH – dropped arguments are true, I wont intervene based on my own personal preferences if it’s the easiest way to a ballot.

Do’s

Do LBL (Line by Line) – a lot of debates do not have enough clash, a good educational debate means engaging with what the other side is saying and not just reading down blocks.

Flow – I have no preference on whether you flow on paper or computer but make sure that you are flowing speech by speech. This ensures nothing is dropped in the round and we can have close debates without the other team just quickly going through what was dropped.

Be nice – Be nice to the other team, don’t be mean in cross or before/after round because debate is already a small activity and we don’t want to give anyone a bad experience with debating, especially if it’s their first time.

Weigh – You should be weighing arguments every round and explaining to me why you think you should win the debate round.

Be organized – Don’t be too messy and signpost, jumping from flow to flow and not implicating things just makes it more difficult for me to give you the ballot.

Dont’s

Do NOT be racist, sexist, homophobic etc. This will result in an auto L and lowest speaks possible because it will NOT be tolerated in round

Steal prep – This is common debate etiquette, we should not be typing or writing when people are sending things out or when prep is over. I will most likely notice you stealing prep and dock your speaks sufficiently.

Specific Arguments

Das –

Extend all parts of the DA and make sure that it is applicable to the aff. If your DA does not apply but you want to test the aff from multiple standpoints – that’s not a reason as to why the aff couldn’t just say no link and spend about 10 seconds on the DA.

Love love love case turns. I think a lot of people don’t know how to respond to them properly and they are extremely valid but make sure you aren’t just extending card tags and explain how it exactly turns the aff, even if they drop it.

Make sure to do significant impact calc, remember I am weighing the DA against the aff and you need to prove to me the your specific impact scenario is…

a: More probable

b: Has a shorter time frame

c: Mag v Mag (if its soft left)

CPs – Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want. I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory. I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue. Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Make it clear in the 1NC what your framework is, could be in the form of a card but in the 2NC don’t bring out a huge block of fw that the 1AR is req to respond to

Debate on models – Explain to me why your model of debate is specifically good and why the aff trades off with that and explain your impacts on fw

PLS clash with the affs fw as well don’t just keep on reading down your minute long blocks and know how to respond to the affs fw/model of debate.

Link

Please have a link specific to the aff and explain how the link functions – if you don’t meet that burden of rejoinder I will most likely lean aff on a double bind perm with a no link claim.

I also tend to vote aff if the link is a link of omission, if explained properly that can be changed.

Alt

Please don’t kick the alt every single round and go for the k as a da – actually do the research to explain why your alt would solve for the ks impacts.

Also explain the world of the alt to me and what that would look like, a vague alt is quite hard to vote on primarily because I don’t know what I’m voting on or how it even solves your impacts

Weigh the competitive alt against the aff

Impact

Explain how the k o/ws the affs material Impacts

Weighing is extremely important

T vs policy affs:

I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs:

Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

K Affs v FW Aff

Leverage your 1AC more. Yes, the blocks you prepped are probably great, but the purpose of crafting and refining kritical 1ACs is that they are meant to challenge dominant frames of the way we think/act; your theory should absolutely be your best offense against the neg. Your model of debate should be very clear—what’s the role of the aff and negative, what does debate look like, etc. Do impact calc on the standards debate. **Make sure that you understand and articulate the relationship btwn your k in round and out of round ie the relationship between some performance of resistance within debate and the implications for the structures of power you claim to challenge as they exist out of round.

Neg

Need to engage the aff’s unique critique of your model; specifically, how the aff scholarship & advocacy, as well as their theory of power, exists under the neg’s model of debate. Put effort and time into the TVA; how does it provide an inroad to the aff’s scholarship? Impact calculus on standards is great. P.S. If you’re going to run cap in addition to FW, try to have some more specific links + alt examples to at least pretend there’s a chance you’re going to go for it.

Theory/ Tricks Gen

Explain/Extend a counter interp – explain standards [offense/defense] + impacts – lbl and we should be good

Condo -

I think condo is good unless I'm told it's not/the negs vision is really abusive. Multiple condo worlds are fun. I probably draw the line somewhere around 4 but that's a gray area; I can be convinced that 4+ is good and I can be convinced that more than 1 is abusive. Theory debates are often very late breaking and difficult to resolve. I am not the best for lots of debate theory especially without good line by line and comparison. Your theory blocks are great but what am I supposed to do with that and how does it interact with your opponent? If you want to debate theory, do it well because I don't really enjoy it all that much so make it worth my time.

Tricks –

I am not the right judge for tricks, I think they are abusive and get rid of education by narrowing debates but if it goes dropped or the other team fumbles it – I guess I can vote on it but that is only if I cannot find another easier path to the ballot

Case

PLEASE LBL I don’t want to hear your minute long o/vs in the 2AC/ 1AR – quickly extend your advs and actually clash with the other team. Even If you don’t want to spend to much time on case this is your defense and offense for the entirety of the debate so be efficient but don’t skip things.

Weigh your impacts against the negatives – against off don’t just say case ow/s but actually explain how it does by thoroughly explaining your i/l chains.

Answer case turns properly because I definitely can and will vote neg on presumption

CONGRATS ON MAKING IT THIS FAR :)))

HERES A COOKIE!

Plus speaks if…

+0.1– Funny one liner at the top of a rebuttal (nothing too mean tho)

+0.1 – Reference a tv show in your speech

+0.2 –If you show me you actually flowed

+0.1– If you do your 1AC to a beat cause that’s sick

Zyhri Williams Newark Tech High School

Benjamin Witkov Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2024 at 3:18 AM EST

Lexington High School

George Mason '29

He/They

capk2nr[at]gmail.com

TLDR

Tech > Everything

I am solely interested in the technical evaluation of your arguments from the start of the 1AC until the end of the 2AR. I don't care if you read 13 off or a planless aff because my ideological predispositions have no place on the flow. Well thought out strategies will undoubtedly be rewarded with speaker points.

You'll like me if you can out-debate your opponent without forcing me to fill in gaps. You should strike me and do impromptu if you think ethos/appeals to rational thought relinquish the need to do line by line.

I will only refuse to evaluate arguments if Tabroom tells me, it's an ad-hom on your opponent, it's new in the 2AR, or it relates to any of the isms.

You will get an L + 0 if you engage in blatant -ism/phobia, or encourage those in round to harm themselves. The latter doesn't exclude wipeout, it excludes encouraging your opponents to swerve into traffic.

Decision Process

I will find the quickest path to the ballot solely based on my flow. This entails:

1. Determining what impacts matter most

2. Finding who resolves those impacts

3. Resolving any questions that implicate who solves those impacts

If I cannot decide who won the debate after step three, I am forced to:

1. Fill in warrants for warrantless claims made in rebuttals

2. Use "truth" to break the tie

If I'm forced to do anything outside of my flow, you only have yourself to blame for my decision.

Everything below are my ideological predispositions/views on debate, and what I default to. My opinions are irrelevant so long as you’re technically ahead on the flow. I’m only including these because everyone has bias, and I’d rather you know mine than assume I have none or “hack” in your way.

Policy

—Main Stuff—

I want a card doc, but I’ll only read what you tell me to or evidence that’s contested in a way which requires me to read it.

Absent framing, I default to utilitarian calculus. S-risks come first, followed by existential risks, and everything else.

If you read an incomplete argument (DA with no UQ), I'm very amenable to new 1AR answers.

1AR Cards are fine & encouraged.

My bar for dismissing evidence that doesn't support a claim is very low.

I read evidence during the 1AC and off case part of the 1NC. This is both for my own curiosity and to understand what's going on.

You can insert re-highlighted evidence. I encourage you to do so if your opponents are reading bad cards.

The idea that breaking a new aff gives the neg a blank check is ridiculous. If the aff is topical, you should be able to debate it. If it's abusive, go for T.

—Counterplans—

I don't judgekick by default unless told to do so or that the status quo is a logical option.
Functional competition alone is best.

Generic theory debates are boring, but I love specific interpretations.

2NC Counterplans are good regardless of their function.

I lean neg on all CP theory except fiating outside of the USFG. I’m probably 50/50 for the latter.

You don’t need a solvency advocate, but I think it places a limit on how much aff solvency you can capture. CPs without a solvency advocate that include the mandate of the plan probably justify new 1AR arguments once elaborated upon.

I heavily err neg on condo if debated evenly.

If & Only If counterplans are some of the dumbest arguments in debate.

Offsets probably falls in second place.

—Disads and Case—

Zero risk is possible, but requires extensive framing, dropped terminal defense, or the aff pointing out a DA is utter nonsense and being correct.

I don’t understand the hate politics DAs get on many topics, they’re often reasonable consequences to the plan

Rider DAs are illogical nonesense. So is the “logical policymaker” argument.

Fiating in offense should be done more.

I have a soft spot in my heart for impact turns that challenge conventional wisdom, but I certainly won’t cut a blank check for their lackluster explanations. Likewise, if you can’t explain why genocide good or wipeout are terrible ideas, you don’t deserve to win.

Direct impact comparison is a lost, but important art.

I don’t ever see myself voting on presumption against a policy aff absent an egregious technical mistake.

—Kritiks v Policy—

If you expect me to “hack” either way, you don’t want me in the back for this debate. I’m much better for the K than my wiki would suggest, a majority of my 2NRs against policy and K teams up until my senior year was the Kritik, usually cap and a ballot k respectively. Likewise, I exclusively ran a policy aff and almost always went for framework in the 1AR. This is my long winded way of saying don’t strike me if you go for the K often, and don’t pref me as a 1 if you think I’ll cut a blank check to framework.

My only caveat is that I don’t want to listen to your 6 min overview. If you debate like this, strike me.

I always start with framework in these debates. I think you link you lose is unpersuasive, and so is aff fw that excludes Ks. I won’t default to a middle ground interp, but you should make one.

More teams should use framework as a defense to aff theory interps.

See the section on planless affs for my thoughts on fairness/clash.

I don’t see how an alt beats the perm + doublebind if the neg loses framework absent egregious debating.

Links will almost never be “unique to the plan”, and I think it’s ridiculous to assume they will be.

Ontology is a pretty nonsensical justification to conclude everyone should be willing to die, but aff teams often let the neg get away with murder in these kinds of debates.

Floating PIKs justify new 1AR answers. Actual PIKs should be flagged as such.

—Ks v Kaffs—

2Ns should be willing to go for these more often, and 2As should have much better answers to most of these.

”No perms in a methods debate” makes no sense to me.

I really like strong turns case debating in these kinds of debates.

I think Ks that devolve into the oppression Olympics in KvK debates are both illogical and uncomfortable to judge. Hopefully you win gold!

—Planless Affs—

I’m a good judge for framework debates. I really like high quality ones too. If debated evenly, I’m much better for the negative because I find it hard to reconcile aff offense, but that never happens. I much prefer a “debate about models” rather than “voting neg solves this round’s unfairness”.

Fairness is the best impact in most instances imo, but clash is fine too & better in some debates.

Debating the magnitude of fairness/predictability lost will help you get my ballot

I’m good for both impact turn and counter interp strategies.

I’ll cringe if you tell me reading T is analogous to a horrific historical event. If you honestly believe this, you need serious help.

The ballot decides a winner and a loser, and I’m unsure why it does anything else. Answering this question is the easiest path to victory infront of me for aff teams. I have no reservations voting on presumption if you can’t answer this question.

Debate is undoubtedly a game, but it’s also more than a game.

I think more teams should be willing to go for DAs against planless affs that view the topic as bad because there’s a logical opportunity cost to the end point of their advocacy

—T v policy affs—

I default to competing interps, but I think in most instances I err slightly aff on reasonability.

Limits are almost always good, but to what extent is anyone’s guess

PTIV is nonsensical, and taken to its logical conclusion would justify PICs out of areas in a topic with subsets the aff doesn’t defend.

Precision is probably better than predictability

Novices

Show me your flows after the round and I'll give you +0.5 speaks so long as there's any effort in them.

Be nice to each other and refrain from demeaning your opponents

For policy stuff, see above.

I honestly have no idea how this event works unless you treat it as one person policy, so be warned.

I'm familiar with Kant to some degree. I won't know your buzzwords, but I can follow along.

I'm fine with "tricks" so long as there's a warrant I can read back in an RFD.

The bar for dismissing an RVI is below hell.

Evidence ethics in PF is abysmal. Rounds must always have an email chain or speechdrop, use properly cited evidence that's sent out before you read it, and neither side should paraphrase. Instant L + 27 if you don't adhere to these. If your coaches have a problem with this, they can scream into the void and strike me in the future. The paraphrasing rule doesn't apply to novices.

No new arguments in second summary, and no new weighing in final focus.

Treat me like a hypertech and read whatever. I'm down for hidden spark, random ks, or your tech case.

The only exception to the above are "counter-resolutions", or anything that tries to introduce fiat. If these are your jam, policy and LD are next door.

I know disclosure theory is a legitimate thing in PF, so I'm more amenable to it as opposed to other events

+0.3 If you opensource, tell me after the second final focus.

I don’t care if your partner does all the talking, but I won’t boost either of your speaks if you give a phenomenal cross, and I’ll tank them harder if you give a poor CX.

I write down important stuff from CX, but it only matters if you bring it into your speeches.

Assertiveness and light aggressiveness are fine, but should be universal (I.E you’re as aggressive to male and female debaters). I try to assume good faith as much as possible, especially between novices.

If your CX strategy hinges on being blatantly rude because you’re reading certain arguments or being a mean person, strike me and take anger management classes.

If there’s a clear skill discrepancy between teams, please be kind.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.7, adjusted based on the tournament and event.

If you ask for a 30, you won't get one even if the other team drops an argument that devolves into getting thirty speaks.

Concluding Thoughts

I'm excited to judge yall! Seriously, I love this activity and have devoted swathes of my time to it. I’ll do everything I can to give you a good decision

Feel free to post round. If you’re rude, I’ll reciprocate.

If I look confused/dumbfounded, I probably am.

Eleanora Lawrence and Brendon Morris taught me how to debate, and I’m endlessly grateful to the both of them for helping me succeed in debate.

Kevin Xia Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 2:19 PM EST

Hi! My name is Kevin. Please don't call me judge.

He/They

Georgetown Day ’25

If there is an email chain, please add my email to it!

-textualperm@gmail.com

Please include the tournament name, round, and teams debating in the title of the email chain.

-I would prefer this format:
2024---Tournament Name---Round X---Aff Team [Aff] vs Neg Team [Neg]

When sending out the speech doc, please send it out as a Word document attached to an email. If you are using Google Docs, please download the Google Doc in the form of a Word document (.docx) and send that.

-Please do not add restrictions preventing documents you send out from being downloaded.

My irreversible beliefs:

-Tech over truth.

--If there is no clash over an issue or an issue is evenly debated on both sides, I will utilize truth as a tiebreaker.

--This does not mean I will apply your arguments for you: a dropped argument is only true to the extent of what was originally stated. You need to explain to me what that dropped argument means for you and how it implicates how I should vote. If I do not understand what a dropped argument gets for you, I will not vote on it.

-I will automatically reject any new 2AR arguments that have no justification for why they should be evaluated despite being new.

--For any other speech, if you do not tell me to reject an argument because it is new, then I will not reject that argument for you.

-I will not evaluate or vote on anything that occurred outside of the speeches or cross-examinations of the current round.

-I will flow, but I will not flow anything said after my timer goes off and I will only flow from the person who is designated to give the speech.

-Cross-ex is binding, but I will not evaluate anything regarding cross-ex until it is brought up in a later speech.

--If your opponents contradict what they stated earlier in cross-ex, it is your burden to point that out to me.

--I will take notes during cross-ex but will not evaluate anything from it unless it is reiterated in a later speech.

-If you believe the debate has become problematic, you can tell me (or email me) to stop the debate. If I receive a request to stop the debate, I will stop the debate and will ask Tab to resolve any issues. I do not believe I have the capability to decide what is problematic for other people.

Top Level Notes:

-I might read through some evidence, but it is still your burden to explain your evidence to me. I won’t do the work for you just because I read your evidence.

-Smart analytic > bad card.

-If you’re running a K, assume I don’t have any knowledge of your literature base.

Anything I say is a default is just that—I’ll only defer to a default in my paradigm if neither side brings up the issue and I find it necessary to resolve the debate.

Top Level Defaults:

-I will default to assuming that debate should be evaluated under a policymaking paradigm about the hypothetical implementation of a government policy, in which the role of the aff is to provide a plan detailing a shift from the status quo that is topical under the resolution and prove it is a desirable change, and the role of the neg is to prove the aff has not met one of these burdens.

--Will vote on presumption if the aff does not extend a plan and does not contest this model of debate, even if the neg does not make a presumption argument.

-Will default to presumption going aff when there is a neg advocacy.

-Will judge kick.

-If nobody does impact comparison, I will vote for whoever has thegreater risk of offense.

--This also applies to theory debates.

Counterplan Defaults:

-Neg gets unlimited conditionality.

-Perms are a test of competition.

-Counterplans only need to be functionally competitive.

-A counterplan is presumed competitive until the aff says otherwise, and perms are presumed legitimate and solvent of the net benefit until the neg says otherwise.

Theory Defaults:

-Will evaluate theory under competing interpretations.

-I hope this doesn’t happen again, but if both sides have a conceded link to different impacts and both don’t do impact calc, then I will consider fairness > clash > education > other impacts.

Topicality Defaults:

-All the theory defaults above still apply here.

-You need a counter-interp to plan text in a vacuum.

Other Things:

Please sign post when moving to other flows and give adequate time to allow me to switch flows.

Please mark your own cards (state it orally and mark it on your doc) and be prepared to send a marked copy of the doc if the other team requests for it.

-This only applies to cards you mark, not cards that you did not read. You do not have an obligation to tell the other team what cards you read or did not read.

If you insert a rehighlighting of a card, I will treat it as an analytic about the content of the card if it is about a part already highlighted and read by the other team, and if it is not about a part that is already highlighted, I will evaluate it as an analytical claim.

Open cross-ex is fine.

You may end cross-ex early, but unless you are mav, you cannot use the remainder of cross-ex as prep.

Preferences:

Good line-by-line will increase your speaks: You should answer arguments in the order they were made.

If you believe you’ve made the points you wanted to in a speech, then I would prefer for you to end the speech early.

Good luck and have fun!

Login to Tabroom

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges