Hello, I am Jouseline Alvarez I attend Harrison High School and I quite enjoy the formatting. I debated both my freshman and sophomore year and I am now a senior. Below are my personal opinions and how I look at the round however I will evaluate any argument that has a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Another personal belief is that debate is not a game, but an educational space for people to yes compete but also express themselves. Be respectful if anything and add me to the email chain: jouselinealvarez@gmail.com

Shortcut:

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 2

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

White Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring

Ways to make the round good --> good speaks!

1. Clashing with your opponent
2. Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
3. Being clear
4. Time yourself
5. Making the round a little fun and silly

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is awesome and probably my favorite form of debate. However, do not just read this because I like it if you don't know your stuff because you might get roasted...

Trad: I prefer trad a lot of styles of debate. If this is what you feel the most comfortable with then go ahead. Although it can get quite boring it might be really fun if debaters use more creative arguments than just the same arguments everyone reads.

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff Phil is probably something I would not be great at evaluating, and a lot of debaters really don't explain their arguments quite enough for me to feel comfortable voting on this. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory... If there is a real violation then go ahead! I support it fully.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is not it.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I'll vote for any argument made against them almost immediately, if your opponent reads one please take advantage of the easy W and roast them. If tricks "magically" manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them. I say we leave tricks to magicians.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my West Coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose to be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story! Also keep in mind the only PF I have ever judged is middle schoolers.

As a brief underview:

• You get good speaks by being clear and respectful while also demonstrating a clear understanding of what has happened in round
• You will get low speaks and perhaps dropped if you are any type of offensive, I have a low tolerance. Obviously, mistakes are alright we all learn!
• Credits to Charles for the stolen paradigm
• Please email me if you have any questions let’s chat!

I am a new judge, who used to do policy debate, but that was a couple of years ago, so I’m closer to a lay judge than a flow judge. I am not opposed to spreading, but you need to make sure that you speak clearly.

Overall, I will judge rounds based on the framework presented to me.

I expect debaters to be professional, so that means no name calling, offensive or derogatory language, or condescension.

I'm a new coach/judge this year (2024-25), but I competed in Speech & Debate when I was in high school in the early 2010s. I was primarily an IE/speech competitor and I'm primarily an IE/speech judge, but I had some experience competing in LD and Parliamentary debate as well.

I am, first and foremost, a social studies teacher, so I'm always listening for the fundamentals of strong arguments. Your contentions should not be redundant, and your impacts must clearly explain why your claims are valid. Please signpost appropriately so that my notes can reflect your structure.

I do not reward speed. I reward an argument I can follow, as well as clear weighing so that shows you're engaging with your opponent's ideas in good faith.

Hi I’m Grace (she/her). I’m a 3rd year LD debater at Lexington High School. My email is 26stu204@lexingtonma.org

General:

Send email chain by start of round pls ty.

For JV:

Run whatever you want. But I am not the best for phil or tricks, so overexplain those. If I can't explain an argument by the end of the round, I won't feel comfortable voting off it.

Speed - clarity over speed. I'll try to catch everything and clear you, but after clearing 2x if I miss something I just won't evaluate it. (also speak up, I can't rly hear well)

Accessibility - don't spread 5 off on a novice debater. If you want to run prog, make it as accessible as possible! Explain your case in cx and don't be all shifty.

For Novices:

Tech>truth - I'll vote off flow but you must have a claim, warrant, impact. Properly extend your arguments. Don’t just say “extend my argument” and nothing else. I won't vote off anything new.

Framework debate - have clash, weigh your contentions, line by line their fw etc

Signpost - be very clear where you are, give roadmap before the speech

Weigh and collapse - the best 2nr/ar go for one thing, use impact calc (ex. magnitude, probability, timeframe etc) and metaweighing

Voters - write my ballot and be clear

Remember, be respectful and have fun! Don't be rude to your opponent or I will probably drop speaks.

Hey guys! I'm Ziyi (子宜) and unless you can pronounce it right in Chinese just call me Eva (ee-va), my pronouns are she/her. I'd prefer Ziyi (right pronunciation) > Eva > Judge > if your school makes you address a judge by Ms/Mr. Something please don't do that it's so awkward. I'm currently a junior at Ridge and I do LD, parli, and extemp. I qualified to NSDA in extemp and BQ and NPDL TOC, and octo-ed at NCFL. Debate whatever you want in front of me as long as it's not an "-ism", "-ic", offensive/exclusionary, you get the point.

Please don't shake my hand/ask me how my day was going I'm not going to give you higher speaks for it

I also have like a rude resting face I promise I'm not mad at you or don't like what you're saying I just look like that

I'd prefer a speechdrop code but add me to the email chain and ask me any questions you have prior/post round!

Email: ziyichen@bernardsboe.com

Tech > Truth, I'm not a perfect judge and I can screw you, so ask questions and talk to me after round but in a good manner. If I hear you or someone tells me you are talking crap about your opp/judge/anyone involved in the round it's a nono

Accessibility:

- Don't spread on a novice, if you need to spread to win the round that's kinda just sad auto drop + 20 speaks

- Address your opponent by their preferred pronouns/gender, I get it if you accidentally mess up once or twice but constant misgender is also auto drop + 20 speaks

- Add TW (trigger warnings) on top for anything you think might be a trigger

- Don't run abusive arguments, that shouldn't be something that needed to be said. If you think something might be exclusionary, just don't run it

LD

Circuit Shortcut:

1 - Phil (if it's super niche then unless you're gonna explain it really well put me lower)

2 - Trad/Policy/Larp

3 - K/Performance AFF/High Theory

4/5 - Tricks (if your opp asks you during cross then tell them any stuff you hid or I won't evaluate them)

I'll most likely flow by doc so slow down/tell me when you're on analytics stuff off the doc and signpost. I'll clear you and call loud however many times necessary but I'll deduct speaks if it gets too frequent.

In general make sure you understand what you're reading and it's not just something you pulled off the wiki/your teammate/coach.

Specifics:

Phil - I love phil and am good with evaluating most of the stuff. It can be a really stupid arg but as long as you warrant and explain it I'll flow it through. But if it's super dense and not the normal Kant/Hegel/Levinas/etc. then def explain it well. Better overexplain than underwarrant and expect me to know what you're talking about. If you're uncomfortable/don't want to do that don't pref me high.

DAs/CPs - underrated good offense. Specific to AFF>Generic ones yay reading them overall

K - I'm sorry I'm just really bad at evaluating/understanding K's. I'm good with the general Set Col, Cap, Afropess, etc., but yea I get really confused with rotb/fw/alts. Don't change your strat for me but def explain your args to me more. Be sure to tell me what voting for you actually does/changes instead of just saying opp bad.

Theory - please please please put the shell on top whether you're going for it/responding to it. I'm good to vote on any theory as long as you warrant it but tell me if it's DTD or DTA. Default to no RVI/competing interps. Weigh on your standards and expalin impacts/why theory comes first especially if you're going for it in the last speech. I'll vote on disclosure but not on one round missed/posted 10 mins late on the wiki.

T - I'm generally good with voting on T but you'll have to do a lot more against a performance AFF especially when they AFF critique the whole model of debate if the first place. Tell me why the T o/w the opp and why it comes first.

Tricks: I’ll evaluate these rounds but an argument is a claim warrant and impact. If you wanna read tricks, I’ll hold you to that same standard. Any "evaluate the debate after x speech" args are silly but I’ve become less opposed to them ig. More substantial “tricky” args like skep, determinism and trivialism are much more persuasive to me than an AC that’s just spikes. Answer CX questions- we all know you know what an apriori is let’s be FR.

Other:

Presumption and permissibility negate unless I'm told otherwise

Yes, debate is a game, but don’t be mean. I'm fine with you cursing during the round especially for Performance AFF's but don't curse at your opp that's mean

Be mindful of your word choice ie. say enslaved people over calling them slaves, etc.

Speaks are based on strategy, cx, and whether you are funny/look like you're enjoying the round. I'll disclose speaks if you ask me to

Basic start at 28.5 and then go up from there unless I clear you too many times or you're abusive/rude during round

Locals/Trad:

If you have no idea what I was talking about for everything above - don't worry about it, just run a standard case. I love trad debate and don't change your tactics because you think I only like circuit. Debate is supposed to be fun, if you don't like this activity, then don't do it, enjoy your rounds

1. Extend your arguments, otherwise it's automatically dropped and I can't evaluate them

2. Weigh your impacts/metaweigh - WHY is the economy important, WHY is probability more important than magnitude, etc.

3. Don't let the fw become wishi washi - if both sides are still refuting at the end then just weigh your impacts under both

4. RESPOND TO TURNs or it's an automatic offense for your opp - it's fine if it's one line and you extend it later but make sure you do have a response

5. No new stuff in the 2AR - I'll protect the flow but don't be abusive

6. Give overviews, off-time roadmaps, and signpost!!! (tell me where you are on the flow, ie. on their first contention, they say blablabla, but blablabla)

7. Pretend like I don't know anything about the topic and give judge instruction

PARLI

Everything above applies if you're reading similar stuff too

- I won't get annoyed if you call a lot of POO's - utilize them because parli is the only form of debate that allows debaters to check each other!

- Ask POI's, be mindful of protected time, but space them out and don't ask something every 10 secs, I'm good with evaluating must accept POIs shell

- I know second OPP speaker can bring up new points but don't be abusive and add 3 new contentions in the second speech

- If it's a no internet no evidence tourn you can use things you remember from history or the news but I won't evaluate those evidence over analytics

SPEECH

Basically nothing above applies to you, in the scenario I'm judging speech just be passionate, emotional, and persuasive!

Hey y'all

A quick recap about me, throughout my four years of high school, I debated in PF (freshman and senior year), LD (sophomore), and Policy (junior and senior year). triple homicide. Second speeches is my life I love second speeches.

Cards:

If you have a card, it is your opponent's job to prove to me that the card is false or unreliable. until then, I will assume that the card is true.

please don't take 5 years to send out a card. if it take you longer than 1 min then you need to move on

Public Forum:

• I am not super strict on time, but since it has the shortest speaking time, I would prefer for everyone to keep up with the time given
• remember it is not about who can make the best policies for me it is about who can prove to me that their way of life is better.

Lincoln Douglass:

• I love value debate.
• If you are going to read a K about black people please make it make sense. I do not like it when people milk the suffering of black people just to win a round.

Policy:

• I LOVE POLICY DEBATE
• if you are going off-case let me know. I take away speaker points if there is a lack of organization.
• if you are one of those teams that give 1,000,000,000 off cases, then you will see me give you a major side-eye. (LOL)

overall:

I love impact debate the whole purpose for debate is information me why should I care about anything you are saying

I do not care about speed or if you sit or stand

If I do not hear your I will not flow.

I will give my RFD.

Everything I say in the round will be put in TAB.

Have fun you humans.

my email is deedeecorbett15@gmail.com - for email chain.

email: kdeodatt25@gmail.com

Hi debaters!

I do not have a preference in arguments, I'm fine with DAs, Ks, Topicality etc; But if you are going to run an argument, I expect you to know it well. Don't just read an argument and expect me to do the work for you. Part of being a great debater is critically thinking and proving why your point matters.

I weigh framework heavily in a round; tell me who should get the ballot and why.

Clarity>speed... If it is not on my flow, it will not be evaluated in the debate round.

I love a clean-cut debate, be respectful to one another. Have fun and simply believe in yourself!

Hi!!

I'm Sam, a senior at Lexington High School, and I've been debating since freshman year.

Please add me to the email chain: fortiersamantha5@gmail.com, and COME ON TIME!!!!!

TBH this paradigm was written junior year, but I haven't really been on the circuit senior year and so you should go slow and consider me much more flay than your average Lex judge. That being said, these were my opinions last year lol.

General rules for me:

If you are clearly racist, homophobic, etc, to the point where it disrupts the round you will be dropped.

If you are just straight up super rude I'll probs just tank your speaks.

Be nice to everyone and your speaks go up!

I will always try to have 0 bias, and evaluate every argument to the best of my ability.

For Novices:

You guys are just learning the activity, so please focus on the simple things like weighing, extensions, and argument interactions. If you are clearly a lot better than your opponent please be kind. Hopefully these will be super educational rounds, but please please please don't make me have to make arguments for you. Even in novice rounds, dropped arguments are conceded arguments.

For JV:

In general, JV tournaments have pools of debaters with a massive range of experience. If you are running super progressive arguments against someone who has never seen a K before, please keep that in mind and don't be rude.

If you do choose to run progressive arguments in JV that is still fine, but I have a higher threshold for them given that frequently the JVers who are running them don't understand their own arguments. Given that, I will vote on anything but "eval after the ..." in a JV round because it is supposed to be prep for the circuit.

Quick prefs:

tech>truth

Theory -- 1

Policy -- 2

Phil -- 5

Ks -- 2

Tricks -- Don't run if you're in JV they're not educational for you yet and they tend to be butchered <3

Theory:

I like frivolous theory, but in JV it can be somewhat problematic so just be careful and smart about who your running it against.

Disclo is valid, but if you beat someone on open source or rr or something based on the wiki bc they have never heard of it before I think you should explain to them how to use it after the round.

Defaults:

Education and fairness are equal, just don't spit out the same warrants with 0 interaction every time or I default to whichever one makes the theory debate more resolvable.

Comp. Interps>Rznability

DTD>DTA

No RVIs>RVIs, BUT I would say I'm wayyy more willing to vote on RVIs than the average person, I love going for them and if you prove your model of debate is better for the space and eval under norm setting you will win RVIs for me almost every time.

Ks:

I've mostly run basic Ks like setcol, disability, cap, etc. If you're reading smt super dense or random that's fine just understand It PLS.

T-FW>non T K affs, non-t k affs will be an uphill battle for you to win for me tbh.

Phil:

Not v experienced in this except for util and Kant.

Given that, I think I can understand these args p well so just warrant things well and weigh.

Policy:

Please just make your arguments interact.

In JV this tends to be the default and I'm fine with that, just pls make your arguments warranted.

I'm totally chill wt analytics instead of carded evidence, most of the time if it's explained properly in JV and Novice debates this is better anyways.

Just weigh under your fw and clarify the round for me.

email for the chain: annacli.712@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Anna (she/her), and I'm a varsity debater at Acton-Boxborough.

NOVICES @ BIG LEX

• Weighing and signposting is crucial! If the winning side isn't apparent at the end of the round, impact calculus (and the clarity of its delivery) will greatly aid you.
• Line-by-line is important! Summaries are great, but I'd highly prefer interaction at the link level as opposed to a speech based entirely on rhetoric. Each argument has its "who what where when why how" components - it's your job as the debater to pinpoint and explain the flaws of your opponent's reasoning.
• No new arguments in the 2NR/2AR. I have to be able to draw a line on my flow connecting your points in order to evaluate them.
• Voters are everything! Tell me exactly why I should be voting for you; i.e., giving a world comparison at the end is super helpful (i.e. what the aff can provide that the neg cannot, and so forth).

Although debate is a game, it has real-life implications. Please remember that you are attacking not your opponent, but their arguments. Take a deep breath and make the most out of the experience. Debate is inherently competitive and can be emotionally exhaustive, but it's a valuable activity with the right approach. Good luck! :)

Hi! My name is Allison (she/her), and I debate at Lexington High School. You can add me to the email chain: allisonliu3219@gmail.com

This is my third year doing LD. I mainly read policy arguments and sometimes Ks, but I'm fine with you reading any argument as long as it's not racist, homophobic, etc. I'm not the best with phil and tricks, so please overexplain if you're reading them.

I'm fine with speed, but please be clear. I flow on paper.

Novices:

Please make sure every argument has a warrant. Remember to extend your arguments throughout the entire round! I can't vote an argument that wasn't extended.

Framework - this is a super important part of the debate! Overviews are good, but you also should respond to specific warrants in their framework.

Organization - makes sure to signpost!

Collapse and weigh - give me clear judge instruction and voters in your last speech.

Please be respectful towards each other and have fun!

Email me any materials at sybillam2020@gmail.com

Experience: Debated LD @ Strath Haven for 2 years

Preferences: I can handle clear, fast speaking but NO SPREADING; Please keep track of your own prep/speaking time and let me know of any time signal preferences at the top of the round

Debating: No experience with CX and PF so please lay out your arguments well; Some familiarity with counterplans, less familiarity with Kritik and theory arguments but not opposed to their use in rounds as long as it's well explained

Hi! I'm Anusha(she/her), and I'm a junior at Acton-Boxborough. This is my third year competing in LD.

I'm fine with speed but because it's novice I would prefer you talk at a conversational or slightly faster than conversational pace.

Some important things to consider:

Weighing - try and weigh throughout your speeches but at the end is fine as well

Signposting - Make sure to tell me what part of your opponent's case you're responding to. * off time road maps are good

Be respectful to each other in round - don't yell at your opponent - Most importantly have fun!

hey! i'm Liz

*** TLDR/ MOST IMPORTANT most important ***

if you spread, be clear... or ill clear you and prob slow u. no tricks or skep.. everything else is fine

disclosing is good SEND ME UR CASE IF IM JUDGING YOU: my email is nicaje@harrisoncsd.org

for debates in general:

i am not tabula rasa

make me laugh, you'll get higher speaks if i'm giggling, and if ur clear, easy way to get high speaks

i will pretend like I am a kindergartener who knows nothing outside of the round. extend what ur cards mean not just names

send email chains!! at nicaje@harrisoncsd.org

plz do this:

i want to see clear reasons you link to a framework on both sides, make sure you give voters

examples and statistics are helpful in novice debate to win in my books

ask me questions if u have any

don't do!

no tricks.. don't play this game w me plz i will not evaluate tricks. just strike me, ill cry if i have to evaluate it

no blatantly prejudiced arguments, comments i.e but not limited to! homophobia, ableism, racism, sexism, etc. you will get reported :)

I am a first-year judge but I watched and observed very experienced judges, I debated for 2 years in varsity in Public Forum. I have attended TOC level tournaments so I believe I'm qualified to give a reasonable vote. Things I look for in debates is CLASH, I believe clash is very important to a successful debate, also please have good communication with your partner and make sure that you both are backing each other up and it doesn't seem like you're both reading two different cases. Please be respectful to your opponent and give them proper time to speak/answer questions, don't talk over them, and also don't forget to pass the mic and allow for both sides to ask questions/ answer questions in a timely matter. Three things I ask Is to please not shake my hand neither at the beginning nor at the end. Add me to your email chain michelle24@belahs.org and lastly please do not address me during crossfire, I don't take into consideration anything that goes on during that time, that time is for you to get to know your opponents case better and for me to jot down notes, if you would like something from crossfire to be considered please bring It up in the following speech. everything stated during speeches is true unless someone says otherwise, pretend I'm new to the topic and know nothing about it besides the information you guys feed me. Don't forget to make your speeches loud and clear for not only me to flow properly but also for your opponent's sake. One last thing I do is disclose who won at the end of each round with glows and grows.

lexington high school '25

25stu399@lexingtonma.org

-------

Hi! I'm Mirei (me-ray) and I'm a senior at Lexington High School. I've done LD for 4 years, and I have experience on both the local and national circuits (2x TOC qualifier).

I hate judge intervention so I'll vote on anything !

Obvious exception is if you do anything explicitly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc (you'll be dropped).

check out @windebate for free mentoring and resources for women and gender minorities in debate !

--------

Novices:

Be in the room at start time !!!

I'm a tech > truth judge, so I'll be looking for you to win the flow! Please collapse, explain how your arguments interact with each other, and extend them into later speeches. Extend the aff case in the 1AR and 2AR, and extend the neg case in the 2NR! Just saying "Extend X" without extending a warrant does not count as a full extension for me, especially if your opponent points that out. 2NR and 2AR should have weighing and explaining to me why your arguments come first. I won't vote on brand new arguments in the 2NR/2AR. Write my ballot for me, and let me know if you have any questions before/after round and I’ll be happy to help.

------

Speaks / General Stuff:

If you are debating someone that clearly has less experience than you, read whatever you want but don't be annoying.

Average speaks are 28.5 and they go up/down based on clarity, explanation, strategic vision, and execution.

------

PF:

I don't debate PF, but I have a general understanding of how it functions. Given my background in LD, I'm a flow/tech judge and will be looking for extensions, collapsing, weighing, etc. I may not be familiar with PF jargon/topics so over explain!

--------

JV LD:

K: 1/2

Theory: 3

Policy: 3

Phil: 3

High Theory: 4

Tricks: 4

Ks:

My NC strat usually includes a K so I have a decent understanding of how they function. Explain your arguments as if I know nothing, especially for denser Ks and high theory.

K-Affs / T-FW:

I read K-affs and T-FW regularly, so I'm 50-50 on voting for either one. For K-affs, please explain your method and solvency/spillover claims. Not the best judge for Nebel T so explain well.

Theory:

No such thing as friv theory, I usually default theory as the highest layer. That being said, I won't do the work for you and I'll vote on reasonability / DTA / no RVIs / K > if those arguments are made.

Policy:

I don't read policy arguments often so slow down and explain. Not a good judge for a dense policy debate.

Phil / High Theory:

Anything besides Kant I have very limited experience with, so slow down and explain your arguments. I'll vote on anything as long as I understand what I'm voting for.

Tricks:

I'd prefer it if you don't read these in JV/Novice, but I'll vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact that I flowed and understand.

Info

Hello, my name is Sophie Shaw (She/her).

I am a senior at Lexington High School, and this is my third year in LD debate. I have competed on both the national and local circuits.

For Novices

Please speak clearly and signpost before and during your round (give a roadmap before your speeches). If I don't know where to flow a specific argument, you run the risk of me not flowing it at all.

Value criterion holds the highest layer in the debate, so you must win under your framework or prove why your framework outweighs your opponent's.

Please WEIGH and give VOTERS in your last speech! It is best if you collapse on a few key arguments in your later speeches that you can defend and develop well.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc.

I always disclose the ballot if the tournament allows me to.

Please keep your own time with a timer that rings rather than a stopwatch. There is nothing more awkward than me or your opponent having to stop you mid-speech because you are 20 seconds over your time.

Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round, and you can send questions to my email at sophieershaw@gmail.com.

Good luck and have fun!!!

Hello, My name is Selene Solari-Cis and I use she/her pronouns. I am a varsity debater at Needham High School. Here is what I expect from you in round:

1. Extend and weigh the impact of your arguments and evidence. If I do not know the “so-what” of your argument I am not going to consider it. If you fail to extend arguments then they will not be considered at the end of the round.

2. HELP ME FLOW. Please please please be organized when you speak, ie. signpost. I do not want to go back through my flow searching for your strongest arguments they need to be made clear. Do not go on long tangents please make your arguments succinct.

3. Absolutely no racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, Islamophobic, transphobic, anti-queer, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. Doing any of these things will get you an auto-drop and/or incredibly low speaks. Please give trigger/content warnings for mention of anything sensitive. If you do not know if it is sensitive, give one out of an abundance of caution. If you misgender (/do not correct yourself) or disrespect your opponent, speaks will also be dropped.

4. Crystalize (or summarize the ballot) and weigh your arguments (ESPECIALLY in 2AR/2NR). Guide me through your final speech, this is where I want to understand overall why the neg/aff world is stronger under framework.

5. To get a 30 speaks: All claims should be warranted, all counter-arguments should address the totality of your opponent's case, there should be consistent engagement with framework, and you effectively use CX.

Here are some stylistic preferences:

1. I generally prefer a robust philosophical argument over feasibility. Doing something moral is generally better than concession for the sake of immediacy.

2. I will flow cross, so please use it to establish perceptual dominance.

3. DO NOT SPREAD. I believe that spreading is a lousy strategy and does not lead to a compelling debate.

4. Please ask questions at the end of the round if you want feedback. I want you to succeed, so I am happy to give as much feedback as you want. I prefer to give verbal feedback, so be aware that it will come whether you want it or not.

I will know that you read my paradigm if you know that my favorite movie is Pirates of the Caribbean!!

Hi I'm Angela I'm a senior at lexington high school

tldr you can run what you want but make sure you're clear and you write my ballot for me in your last speech

Yes I want to be on the email chain angelabowman07@gmail.com but speech drop is easier

Quick prefs:

• theory - 1
• generic K's - 2
• policy - 4
• generic phil (kant, hobbes, etc..) - 4

Notes:

I will try my best evaluate almost every type of argument but there's no guarantee I can evaluate it well (i.e. if you read dense phil tricks I will try but no guarantee I will vote the right way unless you explain it really clearly)

For novices:

I'm comfortable with you reading anything no matter how weak the link chain is, I vote off of any argument as long as I flow a warrant

tech>truth

please make sure you weigh (under your framework and just impact clac) and write my ballot for me in your last speech

some notes:

• tech > truth
• my speaks start at a 29 and go up or down depending on the round
• I don't tolerate in-round violence (this includes, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) I'll drop you with low speaks
• don't be rude
• *I suck at flowing so if your opponent dropped something make sure to emphasize it
• I don't listen or flow cx

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

Email: 25stu260@lexingtonma.org

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

Important things to do:

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

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

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

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

Speakers:

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

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

3. Be nice and respectful

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

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions

Hi! I’m Nicole, and I’m a 3rd year LD debater at Lexington High School. My pronouns are they/them. You can call me Asa if you want to(AH-Suh), (reconsider if you can't do it right and know that no debater has EVER pronounced it right so seriously reconsider), you can call me Nicole, you can give me non-derogatory nicknames, you can call me by my chinese name, you don't need to refer to me as Judge in round or out round - I don't care what you call me and you can do whatever you want <3

Debate wise I am most influenced by Devane Murphy, Sai Karavadi, Joshua Adegoke, and most definitely and importantly, my lovely coaches Sheryl Kaczmarek and Janet Novack.

This is a debate round, not a divorce court, and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

For any questions you have regarding my paradigm, feel free to ask me pre-round.

.

.

My email: nwang0651@gmail.com for email chains, but seriously, whatever you do please do it quickly, just save me some time. You should always give me your speech docs. I don't have a preference between speechdrop and email chain.

The email chain should be formatted as the following (done pre-round please):

Natcir:

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

Name of document: Tournament name round flight - side [Team Code]

Locals (except Needham bc flights exist - also except Big Lex but Big Lex is NOT a local):

Subject: Tournament Name Round Year --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Name of document: Tournament name round - side [Team Code]

.

.

Update Newark 2025: You should know to set up the email chain pre-round at this point, and I don't want to start the round ten minutes late because of an email chain issue. You should also know how to correctly set up the email chain - i.e. the way I formatted above. Also, I find myself never having enough time to type out an rfd while flowing - all my feedback will be verbal, feel free to record them, and if you really want a full typed out rfd with feedbacks, I can email it to you after the tournament ends.

I am here because you are here and I am always here for you. You are a valued member of the debate community and you should know your worth - no records or speeches in rounds, no wins and losses define you. You will be okay and I can never stress that enough to novices.

Update Big Lex 2025: I am obligated for every round on Saturday and Sunday which means I will be very... very... very tired. I will probably look grumpy/apathetic/tired/annoyed during rounds... I will do my best tho.

.

.

.

Novice LD / General:

Overview and general judging philosophy:

For MSDL, please scroll down to the MSDL NLD section after reading this.

(I know, it’s really long, but please carefully read through it (at least skim), it's the two minutes you spare now that might end up giving you my ballot, I also realized this is not novice enough since it expects you to know that you should weigh, you should properly extend, signpost, collapse, organize your speeches and know how to properly utilize cx... blah blah blah. Just reference this if you're a novice and have absolutely no time - this is my friend Ting's novice paradigm and it really says everything you know in much more concise language because I can talk for hour on this - and you can see the length of my paradigm, I really have a lot to say about debate - reading Ting's paradigm is enough if you find nothing on mine makes sense and your varsities haven't taught you what stuff here means, but if the things on Ting's paradigm makes perfect sense to you and seem basic enough that you want to see my preference, please read mine. Actually how about let's just read both if you have time, perm do both sounds awesome):

Arguments need proper extension and comparative weighing to be voted on. Be clear during speeches and despite I can take really fast speed, clarity>speed at all times (it means go as fast as you want but I will be really annoyed if you're unclear). I will not vote on anything that's not physically on my flow (yes I take notes in cx and cross is always binding), and I can definitely flow you, but I might not be able to flow the combo of you + mumble + echo + distance + whatever else you got there (debaters never fail to surprise me), if you'reunclear (even after I clear you 20 times), and you lose the round because I missed stuff, I will not take "oh I swear I said it tho here here there there" when I look at my flow front and back and it's simply like, not there. Instead of explaining all this again, I'm probably just going to look at you likethis, pretend you don't exist then quietly walk off before you start yelling at me. (theoretically should NOT happen in locals because I rarely miss non-spreaded arguments but you never know)

I'm very expressive, if you see me looking up frustrated/confused/paused flowing an argument, that likely means I didn't understand, so you should explain again closely and more clearly! Please signpost and provide roadmaps, so I can better organize my flow and make sure things go where they're supposed to be (Flowing your offenses and defenses where they're supposed to go will really help you).

An argument needs to have extended warrants to be voted on. Concession doesn't mean blippy or no extension, please still properly extend and explain. Extend warrants, not card cite, and not labels. I need the warrant in order to vote on the argument and "extending the whole aff now move on to lbl" is nowhere near sufficient, "extend the turn now lbl on other stuff" is also not sufficient because I need the warrants for the turn. Suffering risks >Extinction is persuasive and I enjoy those debates. IVIs need warrants and impacts to be voted on or it is not complete (unless the offense is so bad I will directly drop them). Also, please have clear clash. A round where there's zero clash force me to essentially embody this. I will be very sad if there's no clash.

Your last rebuttal should write my ballot for me. Tell me exactly why you win, on what argument, why that argument matters, why your opponent should not win and why their response on your argument in wrong - etc. Properly collapse, line by line and weigh. Even if you feel like you have won fw, weigh under both fws and tell me why either way you win.

I do my best to be tab and I am most 100% tech>truth(unless you are going to tell me something blatantly anti-history or infuriating i.e. slavery/colonialism/WWI&WWII never happened) If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. However, NEVER RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE. I heavily dislike doing extra work for either side, and intervention is the one way to get the judge tired, annoyed and both debaters upset, so please just do not force me to do that. I also will read through your actual evidence and I suggest you do so to your opponents as well, because despite I dislike satire sources to the biggest extent, I'm forced to buy an argument purely backed up by a satire article before someone calls it out.

Please be nice and respectful to each other and understand ANY isms that I catch(by which I feel extremely uncomfortable and noticed) will immediately (without any hesitation) make me furious and result in a drop with the lowest speaks I can possibly give, and I expect the opposing team to hold them accountable in the very next speech/cross (+speaks if you do!). IF I am having suspicions and got an ick but I'm not sure, I will likely stare at you like this. (that's my signal for you to start properly explaining yourself and I'm considering whether I should drop you) I refuse to pretend it has never happened, and will probably question/call out in my rfd.

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear once more: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Do not misgender people.Do not misgender your opponent, do not misgender me. If you did, please apologize and do not do it again. Don't read my VLD paradigm and decide that if you have a good enough reason you can swear. You have zero reasons to swear. Profanity is not allowed and your speaks will suffer for it. Don't attack your opponent personally - ad homs result in nuked speaks and me being upset for the rest of the day.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone, so feel free to either ask questions or communicate with me before or after round/any time in the tournament, or email me at any time if you want help(I really will send you my files). Do what you're best at and most importantly, have fun debating!!

.

.

What I like:

• close line by lining
• judge instructions and overviews
• off-time roadmaps
• lots of weighing
• close interaction with link chains
• lots of turns and nuqs
• clear signposting (please tell me where you are on the flow...... please)
• good FW debates where direct warrants are clashed and line-by-lined
• CX pressing on links
• cross-applying offense
• carded blocks
• good perms make me smile
• Collapses and clean ballot stories
• organized speeches

What I dislike:

• making arguments in cx
• no warrant (it's my initial but NO)
• new arguments in 2N and 2A
• jumping across flows back and forth
• no signposting
• extremely unclear case reading in an attempt to be fast
• extreme aggression in cx (I like heavy cross but no need to be a jerk - I can tell if someone's pressing on link chains and if someone is just plainly being rude trust me)
• bad citations (or NO citations)
• blippy responses
• y'all, plain repetition is not a good extension. A four-minute 2N followed by a greatest hits album where you repeat your favorite arguments twice word by word might not get you the ballot, but good weighing and explanation with cross-application and engagement with framing most certainly will!
• If you are reading multiple offs, or even just contentions, OH. MY. GOD. Don't jump around and have random three lines of DA work in the middle of your CP lbl it kills me when you get flows messy please don't I am begging!
• lying. If you say your opponent dropped something when they put 5 turns four NUQs 3 cards two analytics and one overview over it, I will not moot their offense, and speaks will be bonked. Also to the other team, please call them out.
• Using jargon when you don't understand them - even if you do, still explain your argument because what you think something means might not be what I default to in my head.

*(other misc things at the very bottom - consider reading them plz.)

.

.

Novice Speaks

speaks start at 28, usually highest around 29.5 and lowest around 26, and this is the approximate scale I use:

Delivery (clarity, stable speed, tone, emphasis, word economy): +1/-1

Line by line: +1/-1

Weighing: +1/-1

Cross: +0.5/-0.5

If you make the debate frustrating to judge (to an extent): -1.5

Isms: lowest speaks possible +L

Funny/creative: +0.2 (if the argument is successful +0.5)

Ethos: +1/-1

Update after Princeton: I find myself extremely generous with speaks when the round is a safe and friendly space and both debaters are very respectful to me and each other - this will change as time goes on and y'all grow more throughout the year - but as long as you don't really really get on my nerves your speaks shouldn't drop below a 28.

.

.

Update regarding novice frameworks:

I realized I needed this section. Sigh. I also realized I got slightly aggressive when I was writing this, so I apologize beforehand. When I say I dislike util, SV, and the way they're articulated, I really mean that I equally dislike traditional frameworks altogether (more like traditional debate altogether), so read anything you like because at that point I really have no thoughts or preferences.

General Util & SV rant:

As the way I was taught and lectured by Jacob Nails (I'm not influenced by him at all debate wise but I took this one in), I don't really believe SV is a real framework*, more like the extreme under-warranted version of Rawls. However, as much as I dislike it, I would vote on SV like normal, just like how I absolutely despise util yet still vote on it.

*: most MSDL frameworks like "liberty", "freedom", "government legitimacy" are not real fws. They're way more fake than sv and calling them moral frameworks is a massive stretch. Whatever - if you win it I weigh it.

I find most weighing under SV that I've heard weak and not the most persuasive argument they could've made. Cyclicality and temporality warrants are very good and underused (I've somehow never seen them used and it confuzzles me), and extremely strategic against extinction arguments (you can ask me for those cards and analytics after the round!). Even under pain and pleasure weighing SV can make winning arguments that I just rarely hear debaters make, because of the misconception that pain & pleasure matter automatically = util and extinction, which is untrue.

On the util side, hedonic theory can prioritize minorities as well, and majority util, extinction o/w are all separate arguments you have to step by step justify for me.

I do not like Commisky 94 as a card. Just read Blum, I'm so serious - I think Hedonic util is a much smarter position and also much less problematic.

Here is the standard util syllogism justification in my head:

pain & pleasure (Blum 18) ---> hedonism ---> majority util ---> extinction outweighs

NOT (trust me I've seen this way too many times and every time I end up like this):

pain & pleasure (Blum 18) ---> YAY I WON FRAMING!!!!!!!!!!!

Pain and pleasure matter, so? Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, theoretically, ten people each breaking a fingernail doesn't outweigh one person breaking 30 bones, right? Now put this in an SV and util context, in a debate context. Ten people living perfectly happy doesn't outweigh one person living in torture (which is why util does not justify slavery). You still have to justify the rest, because hedonism and util are not the same on my book.

On this note, I find util warrants against minority arguments often problematic and violent, such as:

"prefer aff bc neg causes extinction," (good!) "and minorities would all die under extinction, DONE!" (?) AND people leave it here with no more engagement, no lbl, no telling me why the other side doesn't do anything for minorities, or neg don't solve, or anything else, I find that extremely unpersuasive and upsetting. You're telling me that letting minorities survive now is a privilege? Are you telling me that there's a binary between the needs of majorities and minorities, and in that case minorities suffering in the squo is tolerable as long as they don't die? I know what you originally meant to say, but that's not the way you should've phrased things. In these situations, your speaks cap at a 28.

In this case, If you're unable to prove 100% solvency of extinction (which means you have to win extinction and solvency!) and the other side stands up and does good work on linkchains, extinction and solvency, properly explains to me, that minorities being alive in pain, exclusion, violence, forever ignored and oppressed, extinction rhetorics are the reason this continues in the SQ and any risk they don't solve is a unique reason why I should vote for SV framing, tell me that the extinction rhetoric is threat construction and their solvency being a form of cruel optimism (give me the warrants plz), weigh the timeframe and magnitude, or even go above and beyond with pre-fiat arguments, I'll 20/10 vote for SV.

Also, please do not tell me racial, gender, sexual, and other minorities are not disproportionally harmed and/or even privileged in the squo, this is the one time I will auto truth, it is not. It is infuriating. Ignorance is never bliss. In these situations, your speaks will very likely cap at 26.5.

.

.

Novice Kant rant:

I have a feeling 90% of novices reading Kant do not understand what they're reading except "cOnsEQueNceS dOn'T MatTeR" is a great and easy way to cheat out of actually debating substance. If you can't explain your own framework in your later speeches at least somewhat coherently, that gives your opponent lots of leeway and framing advantages. I pulled out the syllogism from my notes - here is the very very basics on how Kant works in my head:

Practical reasoning --->

1. Everybody is fundamentally equal (everybody has the same capacity for practical reasons) pr binding ---> a. Arbitrary to make moral rules for some but not others - same rules have to apply to everyone ---> b. Anything else means ethics is non-binding if certain ppl/positions don't have to follow rules you can just put yourself in that position --->

2. Principle of noncontradiction (statement true, then can’t be false at the same time) ---> a. If I argue against noncontradiction saying they can be, my own arg. falls apart because that applies to everything ---> 2. Impossible to conceptualize something contradicting at the same time to FW

Conclusion: to be moral under kant, maxens need to pass the test of universalization and see if it’s contradictory.

i.e. if I wanna kill someone, then we need to universalize this maxen ---> I can kill ---> everyone starts killing ---> if contradiction then immoral ---> universalizing my maxen kills my maxen ---> if everyone kills, someone would kill me, so then I can no longer kill ---> maxen fails ---> killing immoral under Kant

You probably want to be able to explain all the above to me coherently without buzzwords, or else my feedback will likely become "read a fw you understand".

Don't read 30 cards and just tell me: hey my opp dropped this one so consequences don't matter vote me!!!! Engage with framing, lbl, tell me consequentialism fails, tell me moral naturalism vs. non-naturalism, tell me what "rational beings can never be treated merely as means to ends; they must always also be treated as ends in themselves" actually means instead of shoving me a quote and calling it a day.

Also, please don't have a deontological framework paired with consequentialist impacts for your own good.

The varsity phil section goes a lot more into my thoughts on reps, but here is a tldr: when you cite Immanuel Kant himself, reps become a significant issue that you cannot no-link out of. Just read Korsgaard, and explain why kantian theory is not homophobic/racist/ableist, I think you'll be fine.

If you are reading the dense version of Kant, i.e. ideal world, performativity, and that stuff, erm, there are a few issues I have with that.

1. You probably didn't write your own cases, which is fine? team cases exist and I get that
2. You will need to actually spread to get through these cases - I've seen them executed and ran something a bit similar. You need to spread to get through framing no matter how short substantive offense is (in my case it was only two cards paired with four minutes of ripstein)

Novices spreading is bad on its own terms because approximately 15% of NatCir varsities actually spread clearly, and approximately 1% of novices can actually spread. Talking faster than conversational pace is not spreading - my threshold is anything above 250 WPM, and I guarantee you novice clarity will go moot at that speed. Please don't. Any attempt to shove dense phil into novice means syllogisms with missing pieces, stretched link chains, incoherent cards, and cards that have been forcibly under-highlighted, which is just sad. I also refuse to fill in the blanks for you - it's the debater's responsibility to explain whatever they're running.

.

.

Very important note to novices:

DO NOT, novices SHOULD NEVER adapt to me, this is exactly why I do not tell you what I read on this section of my paradigm, please do what you are good at for the sake of our collective well-being and sanity. I am extremely progressive and technical as a debater, which yes, spills a bit into how I judge as I will smile if you spam perms, turns and DAs to case, but certainly doesn't mean I judge likethis.

In fact, I prefer you do what you do which is perfectly fine than seeing this, this and this when I'm judging novices, I rather listen to some cute larp trad and disads.

Here's a little rant on progressiveness in novice LD.

1. It's going to be bad no matter what. Novices should stay away from progressive stuff at least until February.
2. I'll be frustrated if you butcher my favorite argument in debate, and I will tell you what went wrong rather harshly.
3. because I'm very familiar with it, I will have strong opinions, preferences, and most importantly, a threshold as high as Mount Everest for it. This means as much as I may love it, I also would be more prone to dropping you if things are not articulated nicely.
4. For progressive arguments, I will not lower my threshold for novices, and you should be expected to get judged like how I would judge varsities.
5. It makes judging very upsetting - mindless uplayering is really not fun to judge because there's zero clash!
6. I refuse to vote for non-T affs in the novice division, as much as I love them.
7. So please don't run it, or AT LEAST show me and ask about it before the round starts and I'll tell you my thoughts :)
8. Also none of this is to encourage you not to learn progressive debate, it's just I sincerely believe novices should let things settle a little bit and leave this stuff for next year!

.

.

.

NLD - MSDL/misc novice stuff:

MSDL (except debaters who are prominent in NatCir, the entire lex team and a few others) generally has horrible evidence ethics - varsities are questionable enough, the novices I judged (except for one) not surprisingly have unbelievably bad ev ethics - I'm talking about violating nearly every single NSDA evidence rule there is. For the love of anything, please format your cases nicely and properly cite sources. It's frustrating to see these violations never being called out and even more sad to hear stories about fake evidence , emperics and made-up cards- since MSDL doesn't have a norm of disclosure (in fact, very actively working against disclosure, even results of debates), and parents cannot care less about rules. Also, if somebody else cuts a card and you take it from them, give them credit, esp when the person who cut it is literally asking you whether you took it (and they're not even your teammate). I tag my cards really weirdly so it's seriously funny when debaters try to pretend they cut it themselves, it's a horrible look. Plus, never read evidence somebody else cut without rehighlighting/recutting + reading the article/book (AT LEAST READ IT) and making sure you know this is a piece of ev you understand, can explain and defend. When ev ethics is an issue, I don't care whether you cut the card or not, I will follow my usual procedure of evaluating.

Don't ask me: Can I start prep? Can I take cx? Can I do my speech? It's your debate, your choices, your freedom... also I'll get annoyed.

If you don't have a value debate you will get higher speaks. Values have nothing to do with the round, It never did and it never will weigh into my decision-making. Genuinely believe its an utter waste of time.

Whenever I can disclose I will. Not targetted to hurting debaters' feelings, but I really can't give coherent feedback without disclosure, and relying on my memory and energy to write loooooooooooooong feedback in the rfd is just cruel. I want y'all to learn real tangible things, not "oh you should weigh better"(the word better by itself means legitimately nothing) without giving you a nuanced explanation of exactly what you could've done to get the ballot, or "what line would've made it better", "what warrant was missing", "is this argument sufficient", "should I have spent more time on this argument" are all qns the rfd can answer. I can probably rant for three years (and I have been ranting for the past three years) on why I think lay debate is anti-educational, why MSDL actively worsens the current issues with lay debate, why we need to reform the way we think, why we need better judges and judge trainings but let's not go there.

You will not get away with the following ridiculous things I've seen on the MSDL if I'm in the back of the room:

1) under two util fws, losing everything on case, concede aff causes horrible impacts and a random uplayering to deontology (i.e intent) new in the 2AR

2) 2AR dance of utopian fiat and shifting to another planet

3) ethos rebuttals with nothing except slogans

4) "Is this really liberty? Is this really justice? Judge, think for yourself." Is this really a warrant? Is this really an argument? You think for yourself.

5) "magic"

.

.

.

Very important note/yap regarding debate:

Here's an excerpt from the paradigm of my good friend, one of my biggest influence in debate and in many ways my mentor, Micah Byron-Smarra. I agree with every single letter and every single word written here as their thought on debate have always been adjacent if not parallel to mine (we rarely differ), while they are one of the smartest debaters I've seen and known in my life. This excerpt also says a lot about the way I view debate, K debate, accessibility and what we should aim towards as a community.

"I don't think debate is necessarily a game. I think it can be a game and for many people it certainly is, but at the same time for many people debate is a site for activism, a survival strategy, a home-place, and a research activity. It's important that we as a community acknowledge what debate is to different people rather than being dogmatically stuck in our understanding of what debate is or should be. I generally think that the judge should be either an educator, a policymaker, or something somewhere in between. That's not to say I will automatically not consider judge as an adjudicator, just that I believe that judge as an adjudicator is contrary to the pedagogical goals of debate. I am becoming increasingly concerned with the state of our collective debate community. I think the deepening divide between UDL's, local circuits, and the national circuit has become troublingly wide. Even more so, the divide between PF/congress, vs LD/Policy is extremely large. I don't necessarily believe this is simply because we as a community have people who prefer lay debate and policy debate. As someone who did PF for four years it is rather clear to me that a lot of this divide really divides us into which side of the clash of civilizations you fall on. In full transparency, I'm very ideologically invested in critical debate, performance debate, and debate practices that are more inclusive to marginalized groups within the community. That isn't to say everyone who wants strictly plan-focused debate does not believe in this, not in the slightest. I do however think that the urge to be in a debate format that does not have critical arguments is often the urge to not have to confront structural inequities in debate and in the real world. I understand the sentiment that kritiks are not accessible, I really do. But as a small school debater (the only debater from my school) kritiks are really the opposite. They lessen disparities between big and small schools because they have a lower prep burden, not to mention make debate more inclusive. Also, I highly encourage you to read up on the history of college policy debate. I'd recommend watching some old NDT documentaries, in particular the CSTV 2004 NDT documentary which documents the Lousville Project quite well. Linked here:https://youtu.be/Xq_F_hPeSkM?si=uChobSpxCv3v6ZKR. You may find Scott Harris' ballot in the finals of the 2013 NDT very interesting, reading this ballot gave me goosebumps -https://debateus.org/the-best-ballot-ever-scott-harris-ndt-2013-final-round-ballot/+.5 speaker points if you read this and can tell me what the Lousville Project was."

Aside this, I encourage debaters to seek out towards resources - there'speptalk,WIN debate(love),circuitdebater, all being organizations which I've had experience with and enjoyed being a part of. Being informed regarding the history of debate is also a wonderful thing, I recommend every single debater watch and study Devane Murphy and Nicole Nave (now Nicole Murphy)'s rounds (Rutger MN); Reid Brinkley's rounds, Elijah Smith's, Taj and Iyana's, in LD Zion's rounds; or go back in time to the early days to watch some of the first rounds which debaters utilized performance, music, poetry and explored different styles; the history of K debate is fascinating and emotional as you watch generations of debaters navigate strategies of survival inside the debate space, which most can agree, is often an excluding and violent site.

I believe we should feel for each other, recognize we don't ever give our opponents, judges and tab adequate respect and care. Often times we categorize and tag ourselves and each other to fit in, justifying for horrible action done to other person - alienating them from you, saying it's ok if you were being mean in round or purposefully acting rude because they come from x school, is friends with x debater, reads x arguments, doesn't have x amount of bids, because they're not someone you need to care about. We're all at debate tournaments and doing debate for fundamentally similar reasons, and we need to learn how to properly care about each other and be nice.

I do not and will never blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, sexual harrasement, verbal assults, bullying, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have purposefully created and further perpetuated a culture of toxicity, ablism, elitism, then you are shocked when the chickens come home to roost.

.

.

.

.

Varsity/JV LD:

TLDR:

Queer Ks, performance - 0

Ks, K affs - 1

Theory - 1.5

T/TFW - 2

High theory, basic phil - 3

larp - 4

Phil (non-basic kant included - think Sophia), Nebel T, Truth Testing (stuff that Scopa's kids read), very complicated dense larp - 5

trix - strike (Don't care if it's theoretical or philosophical - if it can be called a trick it's out the window)

Please don't make me judge a trad round if you have literally anything else to read.

.

.

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

it's sad when your NC/AC looks like mona lisa and NR/AR overview looks like the starry night but then the actual lbl looks like my sketch of my friend's cat. It's obvious, it's pathetic, it's a bad look. Can we have anything genuine? Can we have real argumentation instead of old recycled pre-written blocks with warrants that doesn't even sound responsive to the particular arguments your opponent read?

No, I'm not really a K hack, more like I just don't hack for anything or anyone. I don't care what card is 'supposed' to win a given debate, or who is 'good' and "supposed to win" and "famous" while who isn't, I evaluate off the flow and that's it(except if you want me to talk about my favorite debaters in debate history - I would love to talk about it. In this case I'm referring to who "got an easy pairing" and who "is already done, cooked and screwed" before the round even started. I really, really hate it when debaters come into the round disrespecting their opponent and overlooking them, acting like they've already won and so, especially if their opponents are less experienced, novices or second-years, people who haven't spent thousands of dollars or have more connections, coaches and prep, people from smaller schools. Seriously, be nice, especially when you may have been there as well. Know better.)

"Like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it." - Lizzie Su

.

.

Overview:

Honestly read whatever you like - just warrant it, make it make sense, don't make it boring, and understand there are things I really am not that great at evaluating. As a debater I mainly read queer theory, performance affs, non T affs, but have lots of experience with theory and T, larped a good chunk and read approximately 3 rounds total of phil (ripstein). Unless you read tricks (strike me), I don't think you need to adapt to me. Yes, I'm a K debater at heart, I'm a K judge, but you shouldn't read something just because I did. Do what you're good at (unless you're good at trix only then strike me).

I would love to vote for the debater that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cx, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization, examples, and cross-application -- meaning, you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I can't explain back to you without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts, a clear and strong link chain, that kind of stuff.

I have a rather high threshold for warrants and really need them to make sense - so quality>>>>>quantity (same with thoughts on offs, I really don't believe it's more the better as I've read 7 offs and 1 off K, and there's a reason I stuck with the latter), pls don't read more than 5 offs - at some point spreading through a ton of arguments desperately waiting for something to be dropped and blow up on becomes sad for me because I really wonder if it's still debate anymore.

Also, do not spread through dense analytics if you are not going to give me a doc, especially in theory rounds or K aff v T when every single warrant matters. I promise you I'll miss stuff despite I hate to tell you this, because my handwriting is not as fast as I wish and I can't hear the 5 subpoints you dashed through while I was trying to write for 2 seconds, and I have an audio processing disorder so let's just not.

On the point of spreading, my ears automatically shut off when you go faster than 350 wpm, and for the love of anything meaningful please at least slow down for tags and make clear distinction between tag and card. I rather you slow down and be clear than if you go at 370 wpm and say gibberish because then I can't flow anything. Things I cannot flow will not impact into my decision.

I love link and impact turns (not spark!!!!!!!!! and never read these two against the same argument for your good), perf cons, ivis (make it complete please), etc. — just make them clear and warrant them. Also, misgendering, slurs, impact turning racism, etc. -- those are reasons I will drop you.

Defaults unless you tell me otherwise (NOT a reason for you to not read paradigm issues - you don't read it you don't get offense):

Substantive defaults: comparative world, tech > truth, presume neg unless the neg reads a counter-advocacy (CP/alt), permissibility affirms.

Procedural defaults: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater, no reasonability, fairness is an internal link to education.

If something makes no sense to me, I can't vote on it.

.

.

non-negotiables:

You MUST take prep time or CX in order to ask questions. I have zero problem with flow clarification when it occurs on your own time and won't penalize you but I will nuke speaks if you are not running a timer when you should.

Safety first. I refuse to vote on "arguments" such as "Truth Testing/Skep takes out misgendering/racism/other objectively morally repugnant things." You can still go for "Truth Testing/Skep takes out this substantive argument (like a K)"* but do not expect me to vote for you if you go for "you can't vote on misgendering because they conceded truth testing." Be a decent human being or else expect an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

In these cases I will go to tab, where tab will tell me to use my own judgment, then I will evaluate this issue as me and not under constraint of the ROB/ROJ which means truth testing don't matter.

*truth testing/fw arguments does not take out issues of whether you're racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist - which also means these qns are a true prior side contraint to stuff like "weigh case extinction o/w vote aff".

CX is good and a speech. I am fine with you prepping while asking and answering a question but you cannot say "I'll take the rest of CX as prep."

.

.

Arguments I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them.

1] Evaluate the entire debate after (x speech) that is not the 2AR.

2] Ad homs/arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round, I will do whatever I can to help out - don't hesitate to talk to me.)

3] Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, self-harm good, etc.) (Heg good and death good do not necessarily cross their barriers but that's up to debate) The debate will end.

4] Shells that dictate what your opponent must do outside the context of a debate round/dress/you get the idea. (Disclosure is something in the round).

5] Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

6] No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. I will not vote on no 2NR I Meets or the like.

7] Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

.

Here's the really ranty and long version:

The short version is still under construction because Nicole doesn't know how to not rant when it comes to debate - but the TLDR lowkey says enough.

.

.

Speaks

speaks start at 28, usually highest around 29.9 and lowest around 27.

Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I don't care if you swear.

.

.

.

.

PF - General:

I don't know PF well although I do know the basic rules and how things overall work, I've watched a good amount of PF rounds and tried PF a few times for fun. How I evaluate arguments stay adjacent to how I eval LD - please reference the general paradigm. No argument is ever sticky, you don't extend it means you don't get it.

Expect me not to know the topic well - I'll be completely tab.

Warning: Reading Ks and theory in PF rounds = you automatically sign up for me judging them based on how I know they work. Although I know how Ks work very well, that understanding is very likely different from how you know they work. It means reading these arguments at your own risk. I also have no idea how PF Ks work because if con speaks first there's like. no aff to kritik. so where even does your rhetoric links come from, how do you have anywhere enough time to impact things out -- sigh. I'll do my best to evaluate them, I guess. shells also work weird in PF - you know what, how about we just don't.

PLEASE can aff go first PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

.

.

important misc. debate stuff

Questions on strat, certain arguments, and feedback are def ok and I do that a lot (please, in a respectful manner) but post-rounding aggressively and yelling will never, ever change my ballot(I stand by this firmly), it would most certainly only tank your speaks (If I didn't submit my ballot yet). I also surprisingly have a very good memory when it comes to people (especially debate people) so make your best judgment on what is appropriate to do and not!!

I'm good if you want a more chill/relaxed round. Judging and debating are both tiring and I get that, and you can definitely be less uptight with me than with other judges, no need to be all formal up. I'm just someone that, if I happened to judge locals, very likely knows/is friends with your varsities, so get a bit loose and no need to do that lay appeal on me, I will not judge like this. Playing some music in prep if you want to is also very good on my terms.

Flex prep is good, don't need to ask me if you're taking prep, CX is definitely binding and I flow it (for questions that actually matters), disclosure is typically a good norm with certainly many exceptions. (these are procedural defaults - if you need to do something else or argue otherwise feel free)

Ivis need a warrant and an impact - they can't be a blip.

Insert rehighlighting is fine if explained AND it's in the same part of the article/book whatever. If it's a different part of the article, read it. By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity. Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

You need to give trigger warnings for explicit mentions of suicide, self-harm, sexual violence, graphic descriptions of violence, anti-queer/gendered/race based violence, slurs(reclaiming purposes), mental health issues, and anything else your conscience thinks you need a TW for. For the sake of your opponent and me.

Not giving adequate TWs make ivis very convincing and easy for me to vote on.

Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your unclocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. prep! – all come out of prep time. I will let you go most of the times - despite I will probably be a lil annoyed. ...Although, I won't hurt your speaks for it.

.

.

If you have disputes regarding my decision, here are some examples on how you respectfully post-round:

I actually have a few questions if it's ok for me to ask? (usually I'll say go ahead)

How did you evaluate x argument / how did you evaluate x argument under x framework?

What did you think about x part of the debate (fw, DA, CP...)?

What do you think was missing from x speech?

What was missing from x argument / which part of x argument was difficult to understand?

Do you think x argument would've been sufficient?

Should I have spent more/less time on x arguement/x part of the debate?

Would you have understood x argument better if I phrased it this way: xxxxxxx

Would x speech change the ballot if it contained x argument?

If x came earlier in the debate and went properly extended, would that be a sufficient route to the ballot?

.

.

Other important misc. debate stuff:

1. I will probably not give you a 30 if you ask for it. Unless you give me 13 reasons why and also did really well, then I'll consider.
2. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what other people should wear.
3. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better.
4. Evidence ethics is extremely important to me -- just cite stuff and use MyBib (or anything that can site a bibliography) if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where and when it was written and published, URL) and so are clipping, etc.
5. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
6. Pronouns are super important — misgendering is not cool w/ me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyway -- I will definitely vote on misgendering.
7. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- Be prepared for CX and please flow.
8. Please give me a heads-up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self-harm or suicide - it's triggering for me. You can read them in front of me but I would really like a warning as early as possible - number/email is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments, and you can find those on my wiki via code Lexington NW. Give me a call or text me - just in case the internet is not working in our favor.
9. Safety, especially in round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, I would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email, text DM me and I will stop the round, consult my coaches, then intervene in a way that both satisfies your request and is approved by an actual adult's judgment. In the case where I could not reach my coaches within two minutes, I'll consult tab about what I should do.
10. Never hesitate to contact me outside of the round/tournament for more feedback, help, ask qns, and/or anything else you need. If you're going to postround me in my literal inbox, please hesitate.

11. I may look grumpy/apathetic/tired during rounds; I promise it's not usually because of anyone's actions (if it is, I'll be explicit about it after the round), and is more just my face. I deeply appreciate people's commitment to this activity and want to emphasize that I'll do my absolute best to adjudicate. Further, I feel like most of the learning I've had in the activity can be attributed to the comments provided by judges after round. Following that, please know that no amount of questions is too much, and I'm happy to answer any and all of them to make your time in this activity more valuable.

.

.

Non-important misc. TMI

1. for locals, yes, Yueling Wang is my mom. Feel free to talk to me about getting judged by her.
2. I will, judging by the day and time, have 1-3 plushies on me. You can borrow one for a round, but you need to give it back to me. I will seriously hunt you down if you do not. You should also NEVER leave a tournament with my plushies!!!!!!
3. Being humerous thoughtfully will likely boost your speaks by a little bit.
4. Do not be late!! I'm not a fan of lateness. Theoretically I should not be late and you shouldn't be late either. Unless you're lost then it's all valid. I cannot promise I won't be lost unless you're speaking of Lexington tournaments. You should never be late for online tournaments.
5. Full list of influences in debate: Hunniya Ahmad, Shruti Narayanabhalta, Ansh Sheth, Brooklynn Hato, Liz Elliot, Lizzie Su, Sumya Paruchuri, Micah Byron-Smarra (these people I know personally and/or lectured me and taught me debate), AJ Persinger, Nae Edwards, Eli T. Louis (and a variety of race/queer theory debaters whose rounds I have studied/watched/flowed)
6. I will be playing loud music in my ears when writing my rfd, please don't tap me in the meantime because I will jump. You should give me music suggestions! I will very likely play music pre-round and/or post round.
7. When I'm judging novice I will likely have hi-chews / mints / candy on me. Feel free to ask for some.
8. Don't bring me food/energy drinks.
9. I find my paradigm absolutely hilarious but if you have issues with it you should contact me!

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach and judge. Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor).

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Note on September October 2024 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality or diease) will result in a loss and low speaker points

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credible news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. ). Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research.

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

-4)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

5)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-6)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly.

7) On Evidence...

--7a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

7b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence usage to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice section below it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-8)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensive/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

Note below '
OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY and the portion which follows, if interested)

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

----------------

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

ALL FORMS OF DEBATE (LD,PF, WSD, Congress, etc)

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The below on LD largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

I abhor bullying, which I most recently saw a coach carry out in an elim round in policy at this tournament. . Coaches, if I believe you are bullying the 'other' team I will contact tab.

Now-a-days- I solely judge policy at NCFLS, and not every NCFL at that.

Special note- I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies. Needham High School, , by team consensus, does not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as affirmaively required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or to have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

Hey! My name's Frank Yang, and I'm currently a college student. I have one year of Congressional Debate and three years of Original Oratory as my competitors' experience. I was in the Central Florida circuit, and competed in countless national tournaments.

Speech/Congress: I write paragraphs in my ballots, and a lot of it will be negative parts of your performance -- please don't take any of my criticism as an attack on your character, but as advice to improve your piece/speaking. That doesn't mean I don't think you did good, or don't deserve praise!

Debate: I'm definitely lay considering I never competed in non-congress debate! My rule for deciding who wins depends on who convinced me more that their points were right and defensible. As long as you remain respectful to your competitors and debate in a way that's fluent for me to understand, you'll do just fine.

If you have any questions or concerns about any ballot I write, feel free to message me on Instagram at @frank._yang, or email me at frankyang009@gmail.com :)

Hi!

My name is Lillian Yang (she/her)

I am a junior at Lexington High School and have debated LD since freshman year

Please add me to the email chain: lillianyang2017@gmail.com

For Novices/Local Tournaments

SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches). I'm cool with any speed as long as you are clear and your opponent is comfortable with it.

Value Criterion/Framework holds the highest layer.

Arguments should be extended through the flow. I will not evaluate new responses in the 2NR/2AR.

Use evidence to back up your claim.

Do not use CX to prep- asking good questions will increase your speaks.

Make sure to do WEIGHING in your later speeches and COLLAPSE to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well. I tend to vote for well-warranted/impacted arguments.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc.

Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round.

Good luck and have fun!!!