Tabroom.com

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Hunniya Ahmad Colleyville Heritage High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 2:07 PM CST

General

psa this is a work in progress and will change as a judge and debate more xoxo

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

send docs hunniya.ahmad@gmail.com-pls pls pls make the subject they tournament, round, & year!!! + email may ab any questions after the round/ if u need advice on anything super open!

credentials because people seem to care??: debated for coppell high school 4 years as an LDer, attended NSDA NATS as a freshman in policy, qualified to TFA state 3 years consecutively, qualified to TOC junior + senior year with 4 career bids not including 5+ bid rounds, breaking to doubles and achieving eighth speaker my senior year. coached middle school debate for 2+ years and have taught 3+ debate camps. have experience in policy, LD, and PF, currently coaching 4 ish HS debaters a season as well

dont be racist, sexist, homophobic, yada yada u down and i nuke ur speaks. if u feel unsafe in a round or need to talk about anything i am always here just shoot me an email <3

I NEED TWS FOR anything suicide related, graphic queer violence, fatness lit. Error on the side of asking me and the opponent.

I have adhd and may or not be on meds when I judge you depending on the day- we love clear slow down moments and organization bc it helps me tons when im not medicated!! before 930am and after 630pm are times when you need to keep this in mind

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything--> post-rounding is diff from asking, maybe focus on WHY I voted a certain way instead of WHY im wrong.

Shortcuts:

1- K/LARP

2- T/THEORY

3-PHIL/TRICKS

about that…

the more i’ve been judging the more i’ve come to the conclusion that having argument preferences seems like some level of intervention— however i think bias effects evryone often subconsciously so to be transparent these metrics go to show you the arguments i have the most experience and understanding on with but i will vote on any argument that’s not morally fucked up (defined above) if it has a claim warrant and impact.

i tend to vote the path that is 1- the easiest route to the ballot 2- requires the least intervention and 3- outweighs which is why weighing and ballot framing is IMPORTANT-- all which is filtered by how well I understand what your going for. if you leave me to decide how Ithink the arguments in the round interact together and which to prefer you risk a decision u don’t like—> tldr weigh it under the framing metric and write my ballot for me

tech>truth but arguments dropped need to extend a warrant and implication

Trad

i care tons about weighing and worlds analysis to help me determine the winner. organization is ur best friendi use framework to filter which offense matters- if you dont do this it comes hard to adjucate I need you to not be two ships passing in the night and do the argument interaction work for me.

if ur a circuit debater hitting a lay/trad debater and its a bid tournament go for the arguments u want to BUT ur demeanor will filter how i give speak TLDR don’t be mean.

Counterplans

explain to me how their competitive + net benefits. process counter plans, pics, advantage counterplans are all a green light

. im more likely to buy less probable impacts if there's a counterplan that solves the aff so da + cp is a pair that I respect

permutations are test of competitions but can reolsve many concerns on the cp-- they need a text and explanation beyond perm do both that gets blown up later. you should be explaining how the perm shields the link I find it highly persuasive. if ur gonna go for severance as a da to the perm impact it out or it wastes time and explicate how the links are das to the perm.IF UR HITTING A PIC AND THE 1ar IS ONLY DEFENSE ITS gonna be very hard to win beyond like pics bad—> offense !!!!!! matters!!!!

Disads

care so much about link analysis and the i/l chain, but other than that do ur thing. most impact turns r good except things like racism good lmao use ur judgement.

do evidence comparison it can make and break this debate, I hate outdate evidence on things that recency matter for.

weigh impacts vs the aff, weighing isn’t just impact calc in a vacuum but clear argument interaction

yes! I read queerpess, cap, security, psychoanalysis and have an understanding of set col, identity ks but will need hand holding through baudy and any way high theory stuff. organize the 2nr, tell a story, ks dont need an alt but if they have one prove solvency, framing matters as how I evaluate the k and if I evaluate the post fiat impacts of the aff- how I come to that conclusion is up to you. the more specific a link is the more likely I am to vote for you.

contrary to popular belief im not a k hack- clash of civ debates are my favorite andI do vote on extinction ow---> just win it

I need a k 2nr to be not 6 mins of reading ur backfiles but actual engagement w the 1ar these debates are most likely lost when you don't explicitly shut the door son 2ar outs and tell me where to flow ur prewritten stuff in the context of the 1ar

please for the love of god contextualize ur link 2nrs to the aff ur hitting.

when answering a k win u weigh the case I buy clash most as a warrant but also eval fairness etc, if THEY CONCEDE CASE and you go for extinction OWS I am very likely to vote for you -- k debaters answer case or shut the dooorrrr on their access to it that doesn't rely on securitization of threats (bc you concede one is real)

I hate when these debates become two passing ships in the night throwing out arguments without any interaction leaving me to pick up the mess- weigh and answer things in context and be responsive

non black pess is probably bad...., I wont vote u down automatically but if the argument comes up in the debate I do lean to say u shouldnt be reading it especially if black debaters/authors are saying so lol and ill be honest ab that predisposition

K affs

love !! but iI will not vote for u just because you read on- dont just do it for me (me having read it means my bar may be higher and so on).

i love creative counter interns of the topic and fun disads to T-- it's easier to beat T when you have a relaiton to the topic but you do you just win

dont forget about ur rob- if u lose framing u get behind !!!

what does the aff do? why do you need the ballot? why not defend the topic? are all questions that arise I expect to be answered in the debate. I won't vote for something I dont understand. performance rocks you do ur thing just justify it. contrary to popular belief- I WILL VOTE ON T- if you dont win your model.

I need to be able to tell u what the aff is in the rfd. If I cannot you WILL NOT get my ballot.

weigh why the aff or impact turns ow before t and win the rob to filter out offense

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

debate is a game but that game has value- means yes fairness matters but to what extent is for you to instruct me on if ur going for fairness impact it out in the context of the education spin most 1ars give. im more persuaded by clash and education 2nrs than anything that sounds like whining to me but if ur winning on the flow you’ll get my ballot. Fairness 2nrs story should be implicated out to be more important I WILL VOTE ON FAIRNESS JUST WIN WHY PROCEDRUAL VIOLATIONS DESTORY THE GAME AND THATS THE MOST IMP or filter education. definitions may be important but you have to win they are- on this flow is a make or break for me win ur model is better for debate!!! contextualize it too the aff. often time these debates are messy because neither debater clashes with eachother beyond their pre written arguments— explain ur 2nr/2ar in CONTEXT.

also predict what the 2ar will be and tell me why its wrong, 2ar k aff ethos and weighing and collapsing can screw t debates over, I like 2nrs that tell me why everything they r ab to tell me is answered b y ur speech and how.

Theory

I enjoy judging this if you do it well

the more frivolous a shell is the less of a bar i have for responses so on and so forth (this means even if i don’t LIKE the theory as much if ur winning it you’ll win, however if your opponent goes for reasonability + defense i’ll fw that as long as they r winning their weighing metrics if the shell is kinda ridiculous. BUT I wont intervene-- if you win reasonability is bad then its bad)

disclosure is good at bid tournaments but if ur a novice/small school debater who doesn't know what the wiki is just say that + win reasonability. evading disclosure for competitive benefits is something I disagree with but if u win why its good got for it. non disclosure due to identity/safety concerns is a model i am willing to vote on.

for some reason this is an issue but don’t forget to like extend the voters and like connect the standards to them. esp in more intense theory rounds you need too uplayer and impact shells out in context.

I default to c/I and no rvis (but only if no one mentions anything, say otherwise and that changes)

Phil

**update been coaching and working more into learning Phil so my experience with it has increased if u care lol the one thing my brain has a road block with since like high school is permissibility but if i can explain the rfd and warrants back to u ur golden

some concepts click with me and ill nod but some fly over my head so watch my facial expressions. I like following gsyolligsms that are very logical and organized.

. I will vote on it if you win it I just need hand holding through understanding it- again I can voteONLY if I understand it and can explain it back in the RFD. if you I make the wrong desicion it was because I was confused.

Tell me how this standard concession on framing means u win, tell me how you filter out their offense tell me why consequentialism doesn't matter. don’t just extend claims, extend WARRANTS

Tricks

if u think an argument doesn't have a warrant then say that-- u cant just win because you think ill intervene and do it for you. if you want me to consider weighing/filter out certain offense and be less "tech" ig then make justifictaions for why I should and that's better for the round or smth

the bar for responses for silly tricks (most) is on the floor— i will fw arguments that group tricks beyond the lbl ie k debaters utilizing k links to answer tricks or a theory shell but if something is conceded and u extend a warrant and implication u win that arg

ive come to the conclusion if you win it ill vote on it also pls tell me why the conceded thing means you win and dont assume I know why bec sometimes I just genuinely dont know what ur talking about

Speaks

ill be more generous on speaks if u send analytics but thats not an excuse

be clear and I don't care how fast you are- ill say clear but also my body language is really obvious! if I look confused I am

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization. make me smile and maybe ill up ur speaks ;)

sitting down early or using less prep is a power move and a slay- ill reward u heavily in speaks if u do it and crush the win. pls do this it makes me happy I will give u high speaks

if u impress me or I like how u debate u get high speaks normally im pretty generous

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL

i’ll disclose speaks if u ask

WSD:

Barely dabbled in this event so don't know a lot about event specifics- will most likely end up judging heavily on argumentation and who is winning the overall flow- so more techy than your traditional wsd judges due to my event background- just do your thing and I'll follow along

I find refusing alot of Pois, or asking too many a little frustrating! find the happy medium. Most of my worlds schools understanding comes from watching Coppell Black debate!!. I like the affect of the later speeches but make sure they resolve any argumentative concerns- especially the four. I have a high expectations for 3s making the round clear and concise, and 2s to do a decent amount of line by line (getting all the arguments needed out there). The 1 should have emotion in their voice, and be engaging with presenting the information.

I like speeches that start with a creative introduction, I think they make the round more engaging and will boost speaks.

I love when debaters start with their offense first! makes stronger speeches

Muthukaruppan Annamalai Walpole High School 4 rounds

Alison Arthur Concord Carlisle High School 6 rounds

Jordana Bales The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 10:51 AM EST

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

SPECIFIC NOTE FOR POLICY DEBATE

Although I have been around policy debate for over two decades, I am still relatively inexperienced as a judge. This is a lay round. DO NOT SPREAD. Explain to me what your case is. Do not use debate jargon until you have explained it. I can only vote on what I can understand. Be logical and clear and I will vote for you. Be debate-y and fast and I may not be able to. If both teams do not follow these guidelines and I am unable to make an accurate assessment of the debate, I will make my best decision based on my limited understanding of the round.

Pankaj Bansal Boston Latin School 4 rounds

Saied Beckford Ridge High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 30, 2024 at 9:01 AM EST

About Me

I identify as a lazy judge. If at the end of the debate I cannot resolve key questions on my flow, I am voting for the opposing team without hesitation. I don't like thinking too hard after debates. Write my ballots for me with your speeches.

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Brad Biswas Lexington HS 2 rounds

Amy Bourque Horace Greeley HS 4 rounds

Karen Byron Waring School 2 rounds

Chris Castillo Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:32 AM CST

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

I rarely read evidence after debates.
Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Pavitra Chari Lexington HS 3 rounds

Northeastern University 2016

Lexington High School 2013

Update for Big Lex 2025

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

Overview

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

DON’T

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

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

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

Topicality

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

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

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

Clarity / Organization

I wholeheartedly agree with the following:

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

aidan etkin Hire 6 rounds

Tom Evnen Lake Highland Preparatory School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 5:38 AM EST

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

Nicholas Ford Scarsdale High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:32 AM CST

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i did ld for niceville high school in nwfl my senior year on the circuit & am currently a second-year at columbia studying comparative literature; if you are planning on applying there, feel free to ask me questions about it/ the application (ik college apps are hard lol)

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

if you have any questions email me/ reach out over fb messenger etc.

general:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them

not evaluating 30 speaks.

the way I think about safety in debate has changed over the past year. i will intervene if i believe that one or both debaters is making the round unsafe in any way, shape, or form. i believe that there is a difference between an ivi for safety (e.g., 'kant is racist, their endorsement of kant is a reason to vote them down to reject racism') and making a round unsafe (e.g., repeated misgendering, using slurs inappropriately).

i will not evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the latter.

i will evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the former.

if you feel as though a safety violation has occurred and i have not stopped the round, you need to explicitly say to me "can we stop the round, i do not feel safe" or something similar and we will proceed from there.

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine content but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks.) **does not apply for lex

be funny/clever/do something unique and interesting

easy ways to get lower speaks with me

wasting my time

being generally unstrategic

sending files as google docs/ pdf

k/performance:

identity ks are cool; non-identity ks are cool. like technical k debate; don't like you expecting me to know your lit base. lbl>>>long overviews. extremely bored by k debaters who don't do lbl work and expect to win when they don't answer key args.

theory:

no theory is friv. answer standards. do weighing. fine for the rvi. no defaults. extend paradigm issues.

trix:

totally good for tricky rounds, but i think they can get very messy very quickly. implicate things on the flow. arguments need warrants.

LARP(policy) and lay:

fine for this, but extremely bored by lay debate. be nice to novices/ debaters going to their first circuit tournament. no i wont nuke your speaks for reading theory/k/trix against a lay/novice debater.

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: not a pf judge. good for the kritik. maybe good for theory. great for trix (altho not sure what tricks exist in pf lmao)

Joe Getto Phillips Exeter Independent 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 6:29 AM CST

Updated January 2025, Previously Updated in September 2014.

Hello All,

Personal History with debate

I been involved in debate for 19 Years, I have debated High School Policy, Congress, NFA-LD (National qualifier), NDT-CEDA Debate, and Parli. I debated mostly for the University of Kansas. I have Judged all of those plus other forms of debate.

I have debated as a Policy and K debater, dealing identity Ks, high theory Ks, You should feel comfortable as long as they are No real preference on either side. I only ask that you make smart arguments that fit your style.

My personal philosophy - Debate is incredibly similar to Augusto Boal's ideas surrounding Legislative Theater. rather than encourage us as citizens to be spectators to the legislative process, We are instead spec-actors that intervene into conflicts happening in policy and use suspension of disbelief (Fiat) to come up with possible solutions and test these solutions in the round. We act out what these policy solutions might result in and try to play it out. That's my default for the education and what the round is for, so if you have a different interp. Highlight that and explain why your interp is best.

The debate is generally what you make it. you can argue any sort of framework from stock issues to performance to policy maker. If you want to win it, tell me why yours is better than the others and why the other option may be bad.

I have a handwriting disability, I cannot keep up with incredibly high speed rounds and NOT use the Speech document as an aide. if you want me to write it down either put it on the speech doc or slow down and tell me that I need to star an argument. This does not mean I cannot do speed, it means that speed will determine how I flow and what aides are used.

Specific Issues.

Truth v. Tech- I tend to lean Truth over tech. I will weigh Truth heavier than a bunch of Technical Drops.

T - I default reasonability, prove their is abuse or massive potential abuse.

Theory- I'll be honest. I suck at flowing. I have a handwriting disability. If you want me to judge a huge theory debate slow down on make a huge issue of your major points. I'll accept most theory arguments. Usually a smart idea is to use theory args as leverage to do something like a sneaky perm.

K - Making it tangentially related to the topic is a plus but other than that I prefer a strong good link and impact work done here.

PIC/Ks -Love them, really proves you've done some research on the topic. Explain what your perms will do.

CP/Disad/Case-Love em, Consult feels like cheating but may be convinced otherwise, the more creative the disad the better. I try to award originality The more case the better your chance of winning. I Think as a whole the community should move away from politics DAs as the go-to generic. I am also dubious that Fiat does not solve pol cap issues with politics DAs. I prefer Specific links on disads. Love me some impacrt turns.

Perms - what does it mean to do both? Explain what happens.

Judge "intervention"/Perf Con - If your world does not make coherent sense to me ( Ex. you win that policy solutions are inherently anti-black, and you go for a CP that solves through a Policy Solution) It is your job to make sure that your arguments make logical sense within the world view and framework you set up. If you think education is the most important on T. Then lose on real world education on a different theory argument on the CP. These are going to interact and I am going to connect them because you have opened that up even if there was no "cross apply X from the Y flow" argument. Presenting the arguments coherently in a way that makes sense in the performance provided is not my Job it is Yours and It may not go your way if you don't think your arguments through.

Misc. Musings -

Many arguments links etc. can be done away with by a simple analytic. show me you are thinking in round how your case or argument interacts on the broader flow and don't be afraid to cross apply.

I will generally reward new and creative arguments or analytics. We rely too much on pre-built blocks nowadays that we lose the ability to think in the moment.

Quality is always better than Quantity.

Please don't lie (See Truth v. Tech)

Be respectful of your opponents, you may lose points if you are not.

All that being said, I am not afraid to use the Low-Point win button.

Puns make your speaks go up because puns are punny.

This activity is about making mistakes, feel free to make mistakes and try new things.

There is no completely neutral judge, that being said I will do my best to be neutral and be aware of any biases I have.

If you use an author in a way that would be contrary to the intent of the author, and I know and understand how an author advocates their work, I will not weigh that argument in the debate. For example Susan Stryker occasionally criticizes certain aspects of queer theory, but her criticisms of certain parts of queer theory are not a blanket rejection of it. If you try and tell me the foundational scholar of Transgender Theorization would reject queer theory and instead vote for a 2nd wave radfem TERF framework, you are not gonna see that factoring into my flow and may be a reason to reject your framework.

I will try to follow this paradigm to the best of my ability but the paradigm does not guarantee I will vote any certain way. Your debate performance is an amalgam of performance, quality of arguments, strategic vision and execution. Just because you are winning one thing does not mean you are winning everything and my sense of how to weigh arguments may change with every round.I reserve my right to make decisions based on what is presented in round. I am not a robot, not every round is the same, not every decision I make may have the same outcome to similar situations.

Goo

Mahender Gurram Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

wyatt hatfield Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Monica He Lexington HS 3 rounds

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

Monica He

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be respectful. Debate well. Have fun.

How To [ ] My Ballot:

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

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

Specific Arguments

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

Xiaorong Hou Winchester 2 rounds

Zhiying Hu Cherry Hill High School East 2 rounds

Zoe Huang Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Guhan Krishnan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

Lalit Kumar Livingston High School 6 rounds

Niraj Kumar Elkins High School 2 rounds

Adam Lane Arlington High School 4 rounds

Jessie Lee Northern Valley 2 rounds

Chen Lu Germantown Academy 4 rounds

Amy Ma Lexington HS

Maggie Ma Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

Vik Maan Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 1:45 PM EST

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: vmaan03@gmail.com

Policy: I am more comfortable with this style of debate than some may assume. I err towards more impact calculus and judge instruction. I enjoy election and PTX debates. I'm fine with T and process CP debates since it forces better AFF writing. For a DA to turn the case, it must turn the affirmative's internal links. I am generally persuaded that the link controls uniqueness, but for less probabilistic uniqueness claims (elections, politics, etc.), I can be convinced by the inverse. I am a fan of smart UQ CP's that artificially create DA's and/or side step impact turns. Default to judge kick.

Phil: Please read framework hijacks. Don’t shoehorn in bad offense just to read the philosophy you want—you’ll likely lose. I prefer carded philosophy over analytical justifications, but either is fine. Frameworks are an offense filter but if you’re reading epistemic modesty, be sure to explain how I should correctly resolve the round under that framework. "Extinction outweighs" is a contention level argument that needs to be paired with a warrant for consequentialism. Skep vs K Affs is legit.

Theory: There’s no such thing as "frivolous" theory but I am great for reasonability and drop the argument. Weighing and judge instruction are critical because theory debates can easily turn into a wash. I enjoy creative combo shells and unorthodox interpretations.

Tricks: This is a broad category. I like philosophical tricks and skepticism but dislike underdeveloped spikes and paradoxes. Stick to a few tricks and be ready to defend them when answered. Arguments start from 0 to 100, so ensure they include a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

Kritik: I’m persuaded by plan focus and extinction outweighs. I favor fairness arguments when going for T-Framework, though I am willing to vote on clash as well. I am quite terrible for K v. K debates.

Bernardo Medeiros Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 10:33 AM CST

Updated 10/23/24

I did policy debate for 4 years in high school to moderate success, and debated at Georgetown for a couple years. These days I’m doing my PhD at the University of Florida.

Add me to the email chain - medeirosb2002@gmail.com

Do what you do and do it well and you will be fine.

DISCLAIMER FOR LD DEBATERS:

- You can read whatever you want and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my abilities, but I don't have that much experience judging LD, and I have particularly little experience judging phil debates and LD theory debates.

Things that are non-negotiable:

- Blatant racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto loss, and I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Some things to keep in mind:

- I typically ascribe to the belief that speech times and the structure of the debate are not flexible, but I guess I'm open to being persuaded otherwise here.

- I do not typically feel comfortable making decisions based on issues that occurred outside of the debate round (with exceptions for things like disclosure theory).

- Presumption flips negative by default.

- Beyond the above, my only strong disposition is the negative team gets to do pretty much whatever. I can probably be convinced otherwise. That said, I've included a list of miscellaneous dispositions loosely organized by argument.

Risk Calculus:

- Tech > Truth.

- Frame the debate however you want, but do it well and explain why it matters.

- Author qualifications matter. Debate is a research activity, and debaters should do good research.

- Spark is a terrible argument. This isn't really "risk calculus," but I felt the need to say this and wasn't sure where else I could.

Theory:

- Conditionality is good (usually).

- All theory arguments other than conditionality are (usually) a reason to reject the argument.

- Another disclaimer for LD debaters: I don't really end up judging a lot of friv theory debates, and I'm not sure I know how to judge these debates, but I recognize that LD and policy are pretty different so I'll do my best to put my own biases aside in these kinds of debates.

Topicality v Plans:

- Limits are awesome, but only if they are precise.

- I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability is not an argument if it is not coupled with a reasonable counter-interpretation.

Disadvantages:

- Topic disadvantages are great.

- The disadvantage should probably turn the case.

Counterplans:

- Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive.

- Process counterplans and consult counterplans probably do not compete.

- Word PICs probably do not compete.

- I will judge kick the counterplan unless I am told not to.

Kritiks/Planless Affs:

- Fairness is an impact.

- I am fine with any and all genres of kritikal literature. That said, I don't have an extensive background with every field of critical literature that debaters like to talk about, so I may not understand what you're saying unless you go out of your way to explain it.

- In K v K debates, make the interactions between different theories of power very clear. I will happily adjudicate these debates, but am likely to end up a little confused.

Casey Meyer McDowell HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 8:14 AM EST

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I've worked in developmental disability care since graduating.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity. Be topical (on the resolution)- I'm fine with K's and the like as long as you link it somehow to the resolution (I'm liberal with this). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it. Explaining dense concepts to me, ESPECIALLY THEORY AND KRITIKS (please and thanks) is necessary if you want me to understand and flow your case.

If I'm judging you in PF , I vastly prefer on-case, topical arguments that have thorough link chains. The chance I will vote for your K or progressive way of argumentation in PF is drastically lower than if I'm judging Policy, Parli, or LD. Arguments in PF need to be easy-ish to digest or it totally kills the 'Public' aspect of it.

I don't do email chains. Convince me with your words and voice, not the text you send me.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!) That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. Check before round and you'll be Gucci 2 GoGo. I give 2 quite clear warnings for speed/clarity before I decrease speaker points.

Nihilistic/depressing (read; 'pess' arguments) arguments made for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told). I can (and have in the past) overcome this bias but be aware you should be weary running an argument like this without being thorough with your link to the resolution.

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

For LD, I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy if I'm judging you in LD.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique (more details, quirks, ways to implement, etc) the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters quivering rn)

Disclosure theory by itself is boring and I almost will never vote solely for it. I genuinely don't care if you do or don't disclose pre-round unless it's required for the tournament. Linking to T/standards violations/ something else otherwise than just disclosure is necessary for me to flow any kind of Theory like this. If you're using 'theory lingo' when discussing T and expect me to vote for the newest Reddit meme strategy, you're almost def wrong.

If you can't explain your K, theory, or other argument without 'debate lingo' and obscure links to weird one-off heavily progressive arguments you probably shouldn't run it with me.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

Graciela Mohamedi Brookline High School 2 rounds

Feodor Morozov Lexington HS 6 rounds

Jasjyot Nanra St. John's High School 2 rounds

Shruti Narayanabhatla Harrison 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 10:08 AM EST

Hi! I'm Shruti and I debated for Ridge for 4 years. In LD, I debated on both the nat circuit and the NCFL NSDA circuit, so feel free to debate however you want in front of me. I semid at NCFLS my junior year, qualled to LD toc my senior year, and placed top 14 at NSDA my junior year. In Parli, I did both West and East Coast style debate and semid at the TOC my junior year. I was also a lab leader @ NSD summer of 23 and 24, and now am an assistant coach for Harrison High School.

add me to the email chain: shrutisnbhatla@gmail.com AND harrison.debate.team@gmail.com (pls email it to both)

TLDR; I will evaluate any argument you run as long as it’s not an "ism" and is properly warranted but here's a list of what I'm most comfortable judging. Don't feel like you need to adapt your strat for me, I'd much rather you do you.

K/ performance Aff- 1

Larp/policy- 1

Theory-1

Trix- 3/4 for substantive tricks (probably a 5 if its tricks v tricks)

Phil 4/5

I'll flow at whatever speed you read and will clear if I can't understand you. ll clear you like 3 times and then I will stop flowing. Blitz through constructive speeches but I definitely appreciate some pen time for back half speeches, so slow down on things like 1AR/2NR analytics.

Minimize dead time. Send out the 1AC before start time. Don't steal prep or clip cards. Don't take forever to send docs.

Presumption and permissibility negate unless I'm told otherwise

Yes, debate is a game, but don’t be mean

Speaks are based on strategy, cx, and whether you are funny. I'll disclose speaks if you ask me to

Specifics:

Policy- I like it, it's pretty straightforward. Err on the side of over-explanation for case presses because I might not be familiar with the topic.

--Cps are great, read whatever you want and however many you want. CPs should probably have a net benefit. If you are kicking planks, tell me, I won't judge kick for you.

Theory: I’m super down to judge a good theory debate. Read whatever you want, I’ll vote on friv theory if you properly extend it. I default to no RVI and competing interps, but tell me if theory is DTD or DTA. Please weigh between standards, it makes the debate much easier to resolve. Slow down on theory analytics.

T: Have case lists and definitions. If you read grammar-based arguments, please understand them(ie you should be able to explain what the upward entailment test is if you are running it)

K affs- I LOVE well-written, topic-specific, and innovative K affs. PLEASE clearly delineate the impacts of voting aff and have a clear narrative. If you cant answer the question "what does voting aff do", I almost certainly won't be voting aff.

Ks- I'm familiar with the most common LD Ks- Cap, Afropess, Psychoanalysis, Fem, Puar, Set col, security and most POMO/high theory(D&G, Berardi, Baudy, Lacan, and Derrida). Ks NEED an overview in the 2NR to crystalize the round and to tell me where to vote. Overviews are NOT a substitute for real LBL- I will not do the work of crossiplying implicit clash from the 4 min 2NR overview onto the K page!! K tricks are cool just flag them.

Phil: I'm honestly not the best judge for dense Phil debates, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability if you tell me where to vote and signpost. I'm familiar with Kant, libertarianism, and virtue ethics but definitely errr on the side of over-explanation.

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. I dislike "eval after x speech", stupid aprioris or condo logic but I will evaluate them. 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.

Parli Specific Stuff:

I ran a lot of progressive arguments on NPDL so I can and will enjoy evaluating circuit arguments. With that being said, I also did NYPDL and East Coast Parli, and am comfortable judging any style
• All offense must be extended in lor, pmr, or mo
• Defense is sticky
• arguments need to have warrants for me to evaluate them but it’s not my job to point out how good those warrants are — i’ll fully evaluate the arg if dropped
• just because a ballot is dropped doesn’t mean you auto-win, i need good weighing to convince me to vote on an off-clash ballot
• be specific and comparative in impacts, sweeping generalizations usually mean i have to intervene
• I can track spreading but pls slow down if someone clears u
• that being said if someone runs spreading consent theory i have no idea what the bright line is and neither do u
• I like a good theory debate, pls prove that the punishments are proportional to the violations, theory arguments should have good warrants too • I will protect the flow but pls still call the POO

Rusem Paul The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 10:17 AM EST

(He/Him)

Hi. Call me Rusem. I did LD debate at Bronx Science for 4 years.

Email: paulr@bxscience.edu

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

For Novice LD:

- I will evaluate framework first. Whatever framework wins will be how I evaluate offense.

- Please have extensions, signpost, and most importantly, weigh comparatively.

- Don't be ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- Have fun!

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

For Varsity LD:

Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate any argument so long as it has a claim, warrant, impact, and isn't blatantly atrocious like racism good. I'll still vote on spark and death good.

Prefs: Overall, do what you do best and I'll try my best to adjudicate. Just because something is ranked lower should not discourage you from reading it. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this.

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 1

Tricks - 2

LARP - 2/3

K - 3

Defaults: comparative worlds, epistemic confidence, presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy different from the status quo, permissibility negates, DTD, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > IRA, T > Theory, yes 1AR theory, no judge kick.

Phil: I love it. This was the main style of debate I did in high school. I'm familiar with most frameworks (Kant, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes, Contracts, Levinas, Rawls, Plato, Rule Util). Make sure to explain your syllogism well. Don't blip past a million buzzwords. I think having a long, well-developed syllogism is better than spamming a bunch of independent reasons to prefer. Phil v Phil debates tend to be more blippy so please go slower on analytics and give top-level framing issues of the framework debate. I think examples of your/your opponent's philosophy in practice are underutilized.

Theory/T: These debates are interesting. Go slower on the interpretation text and provide a warrant for the violation, especially in topicality debates. Spec is cool. Make sure to have definitions in T debates. You should extend paradigm issues but you do not have to extend the warrants if it goes conceded. I recommend having a bright-lineif you are going for reasonability.

Tricks: These debates can be very funny. I like tricks I have never seen before, phil tricks, and weird skep warrants over dumping a bunch of a prioris and incoherency definitions. I will evaluate every speech so do not read "evaluate the debate after x speech" or "evaluate the theory debate after x speech."

LARP: I find these debates to be the most boring but I like weird counterplans that have a solvency advocate. I'll try my best but you probably do not want me judging a super technical policy debate.

Kritiks: I am most familiar with Cap, Deleuze, and security. Understand your lit base well and explain your theory of power well. Explain why your view of power/morality/the world is true and why I should care about it in the context of this resolution and/or round. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand so avoid using a lot of jargon.
I'll happily vote on a non T aff or a performance aff if it is won on the flow.

Miscellaneous:
- Be nice.
- Don't steal prep. Compiling the doc is prep. Sending is not.
- Send anything prewritten such as blocks/overviews.
- Post-rounding is fine so long as I don't find it to be rude.
- I'll disclose speaks if you ask unless tournament rules say otherwise.
- I most likely will have little to no information about the actual topic lit since I haven't kept up with debate.
- I don't flow CX except for writing down the status of advocacies.
-Don't run 30 speaks theory. I only give 30 speaks if your speeches are really perfect.

Donny Peters Brooklyn Emerging Leaders Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM EST

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Sonnie Picallo Poly Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 10:09 AM EST

Before we begin

Debate is hard, treat yourself kindly. If you are a debater: Have you had water today? Have you eaten? Take care of yourself and those around you. Good luck, you are going to do great! Remember that debate can be fun, and that you are powerful for choosing to speak a world into being. If you are a coach/debate adult: Treat the debaters you judge, coach, and prep against with kindness and respect. They are not you, and that's a good thing. Your callousness is contagious.

Debate means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and that's okay. Don't be ashamed about caring a lot. Don't be ashamed about not really caring at all. I hold my profound appreciation of debate in one hand, and my deep frustration toward it in the other. I hold my role as an educator in one part of my heart, and my role as an adjudicator in the other. Unite the two, and the ballot is yours.

If you are ever in a position where you face an argument that you have no idea to answer and the round doesn't feel worth debating, you can forfit the round and we can talk about effective strategies for answering it and I will give you helpful cards and suggestions. I would give you a 28.9 and the winning debaters a 29.5. I would make both teams give a speech at the end of the round and we can use it as an opportunity for individual guided learning.

The Basics

Hi! I debated at SUNY Binghamton and was a semi and quarter finalist at the CEDA National tournament, and won the West Point Tournament. I also debated for Brooklyn Tech, and got some bids. I use they/them pronouns. If you have any questions email me at hpicall1@binghamton.edu and I am happy to answer them! This also works for rounds.

I am what you say I am, I will do what you tell me to do. Explain to me what I should care about and how I should evaluate it. Debate rounds can look like a lot of things, and I am down for all of it. If you make it feel worth it, I will do work for you. Being persuasive, creative, or captivating are all ways to make me give an extra glance at what you are saying. Do something cool! Or don't. I will listen either way.

I don't like the delineation between tech and truth. Tech is truth, insofar as the tecnhe of this activity shapes the parameters of what constitutes truth in the context of the specific round you are in. But if you convince me that what you have to say outweighs whatever argument you dropped, then you will win. I am a very flow centric judge, but the optics and social dynamics of what is happening texture my flow and my willingness to prioritize certain arguments over others. After all, the flow is a written recollection of what happened in the room. But I was in the room, and what happened can make me view my flow with suspicion.

Be good or be good at it. If you want to do something crazy, go for it. But be prepared to do it well. I respect anyone who wants to think outside the box, but you have to explain why the box is bad and why it's good that you aren't in it. Whether or not you do it well, you will have my undying love and support !!!! <3 But not necessarily my ballot. That being said, please email me or bug me after round/in the hallway about ways to improve. For those who dare to think otherwise, I want to see you grow.

Debate is an oratory activity!!! I try my hardest to flow solely based on what I hear, and am very willing to "clear" you. If I have to spend my time chasing where you are on the document I will be sad and probably give up, which will lower your speaks and mean my RFD may frustrate you. Also, I care much more about well warrented analytics and historical analysis than a super fire card.

I think "US Hegemony good" is a more disgusting argument than "death good". I will vote on either. What does this say about me? Who's to say.

I reserve the right to intervene in the round if it is made unsafe due to bigotry. If there is anything that I can do to help facilitate a safe space, I am happy to do so. That being said, I take claims about "safety" in round very seriously. The only argument that I will be transparent about apriori not voting on is "well if what we did made you unsafe, why don't you call tabroom". Tabroom isn't in the room, I am. If the team claiming that certain behavior is unsafe decides to debate it out, I will assume that my ballot then becomes a referendum on the permissibility of certain behaviors in debate. I am fine with that, I think those debates are important to have, but if you want to stop the round you have to explicitly say "can we stop the round, I do not feel safe in this environment" and then we will proceed from there. Questions of what the ballot entails could then come after.

Who I am

If you want to learn more about what I think about debate and have some time to read, I’ll put stuff here. This is for if you are bored looking through paradigms or you think I'm neat in which case I'm flattered !

I am an educator who is currently getting certified to teach english in the DOE, but studied philosophy in undergrad. Much of my experience in debate outside of competing is volunteering at local programs and tournaments. This means, for me, the reason why debate is important is its ability to spread important political education to as many people as possible and from as many backgrounds as possible. Debate is a game, but one with the capacity for intense transformation and trauma due to the social implications that undergird every aspect of the activity. If there are ever questions of accessibility in rounds I am more than happy to help out and make sure debate is as educational and am more than happy to talk with coaches or debaters after rounds to explain my decision and help see small school debate grow.

In debate rounds I did wacky things. No cards on the aff, live music on the neg. I like to talk about the relationship between race, class, and the ways that we construct meaning through semiotic representation. I have been in a lot of different kinds of debate rounds, and it has taught me that there are many different things one can do when the doors close and tab isn't looking. Debate is a game, but it is also a site of creation and expression!

I am a K debater at heart, but in any debate round I am looking for engagement. With the exception of arguments that are actively bigoted (and if you have to ask yourself "would Sonnie think this is bigoted" the answer is probably yes) I will vote on anything. My heart is full of joy but my pen is jaded, connect the two and the world is yours. In high school I debated """"high theory"""", and in college I focused more on arguments relating to the black radical tradition. My favorite rounds are one where different disciplines/school of thoughts interact with each other in interesting and intuitive ways. I enjoy clash rounds and K v K rounds equally.

If you are a K debater at a small school I would be happy to throw some files your way and answer any questions :)

Thoughts on arguments

Plan based aff’s: Remember that the aff is not just a set of moving parts, it is an action that you are trying to prove to me is valuable. The better you explain your affirmative in relation to your impacts and the opponents offense, the better. Case takeouts are very important in my decision calculus.

K Affs: By the end of the round I would like a good idea of what the aff does and how. I like it when K Affs solve things and if yours doesnt it would be smart to have a very robust explanation of your affs relationship to presumption and why you don't have the burden of doing things. Using examples and historical understanding to contextualize your solvency to the world is wonderful. If you do want to break all rules, be prepared to defend it. I am very down to vote on weird things, but you need to win said weird things and prove why that means I vote for you.

K’s: Be clear, both with your scholarship and with how you use it in debate. I will give high speaks to those who are able to articulate kritikal literature in ways that are easy to understand and relevant to the round. Often in the 2nc the K splits up into the framework and plan based flow, and while I am fine with this just tell me where to put my pen.

CP’s: I find very well researched and articulated counterplans to be very fun to watch in action. Advantage CPing out of k affs is baller and not utilized enough, policy teams using their arguments to mess with k teams is innovative and cool.

DA’s: You do you homie. Not really much to say here except going for policy da’s against k affs is a smart strategic move if they defend them.

T: I think T is underutilized against plan based affirmatives. To win T you need to be as specific as possible, highlighting unique moments where the aff utilized the violation to put the negative into an unwinable position that limits the values of the activity. That isn't particularly hard to do given the ways that a lot of policy aff's are written. That being said, go slow and be thorough as I am not caught up on the T lingo/topic jargon.

Theory: Its cool, and I like creative interpretations of theory. Just make sure to send out and not spread your theory analytics too fast so I can understand and flow them. Similar to T, contextualize it to the round as much as possible and apply it to the line by line to explain to me what your opponent can and cannot weigh under your and their interpretation.

Framework: I am making an important distinction between T and FW. T implies the existence of fiat while FW does not (as no part of the resolution implies fiat, but the question of fiat is irrelevant in T debates because it is implied). Most people probably scrolled down just to see my thoughts on FW because this is the Northeast and FW is half of the debates we have here, so I will be more articulate.

The most common scenario where I vote aff is when the negative has done no work on the case page, as the 2ar gets to stand up and explain how the entire 1ac is a critique of framework and then weigh the entirety of the case against FW, which means their impacts outweigh. The most common scenario where I vote neg is when Framework (and other parallel arguments like "state engagement good" or "roleplaying good") is contextualized to the 1ac and resolves aff offense while still showing that playing the game of policy debate is good and cool.
While I do not think that fairness is an impact (I see it as an internal link towards other impacts, insofar as participation in an unfair activity discourages people from participating in it and is thus more of an impact magnifier for other impacts) I do think that the most compelling FW impacts are ones based around the question of competitive incentives and clash. Questions I find myself asking in FW rounds are "what is the role of the negative?", "what types of debates are incentived under the aff model, and are those debates more or valuable than plan focused debate?" and "what is the value of bringing this thought into debate?" Kritikal aff's dont neccesarily need to defend a model of debate, but these questions will still linger in my head.
I see Switch Side Debate and Topical Versions of the Aff very similarly to the way one would view a DA and CP. You have presented an alternative model of debate that avoids the impacts of a DA (limits, ground, etc) while also resolving aff offense. This means the aff conceding SSD or the TVA is not an instant neg ballot if you arent winning any offense against the aff OR why SSD/TVA is better than the affs model (in the same way that in the case where a CP is presented presumption flows aff).

LD Specific

I am relatively new to LD, but don't have the cynicism towards tricks, and theory that many Policy debaters transitioning into LD have. An argument is an argument, and as long as you have a claim, warrant, and impact I will evaluate it. That being said, if you do not contextualize your offense to your opponents offense I won't see why it matters, and the more disingenuous the argument the less work I am willing to do for you. Also, education and clash outweighs is a very persuasive answer to tricks for me. "Even if they win this on the line by line, you should still evaluate X because Y" is something that will make me vote for you even if you concede some smaller phil or tricky argument. Does that make sense?

I will approach phil debates with my background knowledge of having studied analytic philosophy in college. I think they are fun, but I won't know why dropping your small sub-point is an instant win, you still have to do judge instruction and articulate your arguments.

The fact that using personal cellphone numbers has become a disclosure norms is disgusting and wildly inappropriate given debates less than stellar reputation for student-teacher boundaries. There are very few situations I will straight up vote for disclosure on, but it is a good thing to mention when going for other procedurals insofar as it textures other arguments about in-round abuse. All the time and energy you are spending trying to get disclosure is better spent prepping.

Things That Will Get You Good Speaks

- Be cool: I am very down for whatever debate persona you have, and love when debaters are distinct and have a presence in round and will always reward them for that. Feel free to go through the throat, but do it well. I am rarely swayed by "gotchya" moments.

- Be a baudrillard pal not a baudrillard bro: For """""high theory""""" debaters or really anyone articulating abstract theories, you will look so much nicer and get way better speaks by being genuine and helping your opponent understand your arguments than if you are smug and mess with them. The better your opponent is, the more I will allow you to be smug.

- Be tidy: Dawdling, stealing prep, taking long with the email chain, these are all things that make me cringe vaguely. Tighten it up! I want time to decide.

- Don't rely on blocks: debaters who are able to contextualize their arguments to the round in specific ways and can speak of the flow will get better speaks, because it shows that your thoughts are your own or that you have practiced and refined a speech so well that you can do it off the top of your head. This applies more so for rebuttal speeches. It is very easy to tell when you are and are not reading off a block

Shameless plugs

I think about debate more than I would care to admit. Here I write about what the radical potential of debate actually is. Here I write about what debate rounds could look like if we move towards a model that sees conversation as a modality of competition.

I will put my spotify here because I often played music in rounds I debated in so if u wanted to see what my vibes were here u go. https://open.spotify.com/user/calypsocan?si=XMTWgaD3TdOMsDKfL80cHg

I make music sometimes. This is a band I was in in college that was good I think, and if you want to hear my current musical endeavors follow DenpaDollhouse on instagram (the CEDA 2024 champion is also in this band).

Thanks for reading!! Hope u have a nice day/tournament :0

Jose Rivera Newark Tech High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:27 AM EST

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 1/8/25). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

Shashank Sastry Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 24, 2023 at 5:41 PM EST

Senior at AB who debated PF back in the day.

Just follow the rules.

Preflow your cases before round so that we are not wasting too much time.

I wish I knew what the topic is, but I'm still relearning how to "Google" something after 1 year in hibernation; make the resolution clear in all of your speeches.

Cheesing in Final Focus is BAD; you will instantly lose by bringing up new args here. No new responses, args, interpretations, etc from 2nd Summary on.

Reasoning to an arg or response is a must (don’t just list responses out expecting me to evaluate them myself).

Let me be honest: I may go truth over tech if you don't give me the aforementioned reasoned args and responses, given that I ask for this reasoning so that you (not me) can control how their validity and topic relevance is verified.

Make sure to collapse at some point, but also give me narrative (show-not-tell you and your opponent's status-quo after the trajectory of the round) and weighing in Summary that is extended to Final Focus that I can evaluate in my RFD. Summary and FF are the only two speeches I will vote on as such.

Meme case is still a case: I will uncontrollably laugh at meme args, but will not fault you for running them. Just have fun when running them, and I'll evaluate them based on how quickly you start uncontrollably laughing while reading them (it won't take long). You'll get high speaks for stepping out of your comfort zone by making the absurd make some sense.

I do flow cross if there are major concessions. Chill here, since there is only so much you can accomplish in cross before losing sight of the args and focusing on assertion of dominance instead (not ok btw; instant 22 on speaks, or whatever is the lowest I can give you, because its that disrespectful to your opponents).

At the end of the day, be a good person, pace yourself in speeches, and you will get high speaks from me even if you don't win the round.

Quick note for in-person: I will call time, but keep track of yourselves and your opponents, mentioning the invalidity of overtime arguments in later speeches.

Quick note for online: I don’t do email chains. Just use the chat, or make a google doc if you really need to highlight a portion of the called card. I will time, but keep track of yourselves and opponents in case I fall behind due to other factors.

Clara Schneider Arlington High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 5:19 PM EST

My name is Clara (she/her) and I am a college student but I debated LD for Arlington High School. That being said, do not assume I have extensive topic knowledge. If you want to add me to the email chain or ask questions:clarasch18@gmail.

Common courtesy:

I will not vote on any arguments that are homophobic, racist, sexist etc.

Use appropriate content warnings. These sources suggest potential lists of warnings

Speaker points:

Spreading will drop your speaks. If you plan on spreading send me your case or I will not flow it.

Using lots of jargon in novice division will drop your speaks

Using pronouns for your opponent other than they/them when your opponent hasn’t disclosed their pronouns will drop your speaker points

Argumentation:

Truth > tech. You should be extending your arguments and responding to all your opponents points, but major issues in the round are more important than dropping a sub point

Signposts are important. I recommend using an offtime roadmap

Weigh throughout the round and interact with your opponents weighing

Make clear voters in your last rebuttal.

Non-conventional arguments are undervalued in debate, be creative

I’m ok with kritiks but be sure to explain why I should vote on them

Not a huge fan of theory, especially disclosure theory. If you run theory make sure there is a legitimate violation or I won't vote on it

In general I prefer traditional cases over progressive arguments

I am unlikely to vote on progressive arguments in Novice LD or PF

Framework (for LD):

Framework is how I will evaluate the round. Argue and extend your framework. I recommend weighing your impacts on your opponents frameworks in addition to your own

I’m not a big fan of utilitarianism framework. This does not mean you can’t run util but if your opponent brings up problems with util, it will be an uphill battle warranting it in rebuttal

If you run any uncommon framework be sure to explain it

If the value debate doesn’t matter don’t spend time on it in rebuttal (ex. Morality vs. justice)

BQ:

I think BQ is a great form of debate when done correctly. Debaters in BQ rounds need to have clear extensions in consolidation and spend time framing the round to show me why their side is winning.

Stephen Scopa American Heritage Broward HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 5:15 AM EST

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com .

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. Otherwise should be fine.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and warren. The more specific the links the better.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

William Shachar Wheatley 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 1, 2023 at 4:57 AM CST

William Shachar

he/him

Tufts '28

Hello! I am Will, a Tufts student with 3 years of Policy Debate experience and am a current APDA debater. Hopefully, you are reading this before your round that I am judging. Now on to the useful information.

Rules:

Add me to the email chain (if applicable): wshachar25@gmail.com
Be respectful of my time, your opponent's time, and your own. Don't be rude
Discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated. Think about what you say before you say it, I know debate is fast-paced but you need to be sure not to say anything that could harm someone else

POLICY (only read if I am judging your Policy round):

Preferences

Time yourself, I will time you but I don't want to be asked how much time you have left (I will answer but seriously, time yourself it only hurts you not to)
Roadmaps and Signposting: If I ask you to give a roadmap and you don't know what that is, ask me. Signposting helps me flow, it will make me like you more
Blocks: I like blocks, they are okay, I don't want your entire rebuttal to be blocks, ESPECIALLY if you didn't write them. Be innovative, go off the flow (this will boost speaks)
CX: I take CX somewhat seriously. It is your opportunity to show that you know a lot about your argument. A good CX has very little silence. If you are asking, make sure to use follow-up questions and question your opponent's answers. If you are answering, I don't mind you talking for as long as possible, stop when you are cut off though
Arguments: Prefer DAs and CPs over T (and Ks but I won't talk about that yet b/c arg limits). If you are going for T, I expect you to argue it well. I will not vote on neg if your argument is just, "Aff dropped T" unless you tell me why that matters to the debate round. Only reason I prefer CPs and especially DAs is because novices tend to argue them better, which leads to better debates
Make my job easy for me. In rebuttals tell me why I should vote for you. I can decide on my own who won but don't leave it up to that chance. Decide the debate for me, tell me why you won and why the other team lost. This also lets me give better feedback if what I think determined the round and what you think are very different.

Other than that, just have fun, be respectful, and try to make the debate as productive as possible. Part of your speaks will be assigned based on that.

LD (only read if I am judging your Lincoln Douglass round)

I am not experienced in Lincoln Douglass Debate, I am not familiar with its intricacies and specific arguments, etc. What does that mean for you? Keep it simple, Using complicated debate terminology may hurt you, I am not sure if my policy knowledge and APDA knowledge will apply to things specific to LD.

However, coming from Policy and APDA, the things that are most important to me are Clash and Weighing (respond to your opponents arguments substantively and then explain why your side outweighs theirs). What will matter to me most is likely how well you compare impacts and how well you present your voters/ballots. Clearly tell me why you are winning the debate and how that was proved earlier in the round in your rebuttal speeches.

Spreading: I am experienced in understanding spreading though I am not perfect. If you want to guarantee I have it on my flow, slow down a bit. I would say medium pace, also consider starting off slower and easing your way into speaking faster, it helps me flow as well as you not trip up at the start.

Preferences: While I typically favor Tabulations over Communications, it is more 70:30 then 100:0. Your ability to articulate your ideas in a clear manner is important. I think Tabula Rasa is a good principal to follow as a judge, I will do my best to not take any biases into the round; however, I will typically not believe EVERYTHING you say as tabula rasa is sometimes interpreted as. Ex: If you say the sky is I won't consider your argument that much even if the other side doesn't respond until you support the argument with evidence (as long as the evidence isn't completely ridiculous I will take your argument into account). Just saying an argument isn't enough, support it.

Nathan Spunt Brookline High School 6 rounds

Sanjay Srivastava McNeil High School 6 rounds

Spencer Swickle American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Jaden Tepper Scarsdale High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 4:14 AM EST

Email: jadentepper@gmail.com.

Scarsdale High School '23 / JHU '27

Hi, I'm Jaden. I debated for Scarsdale for four years. Find the section that describes your level below (VLD, JVLD, or NLD).

> VLD:

I am willing to judge anything, and I have no preferences for what you read and analyze tech > truth. I have been out of debate for a bit, so clear signposting, well-explained arguments, and general clarity are greatly appreciated.

For reference: I used to read theory, philosophy, and tricks (I'm a bit sorry for that).

> General Pref Ordering based on how well I think I understand the topics and literature

1] Phil / Theory / T / Tricks

2] Policy

3] Ks v Non-Ks

4] K v K

> Phil

I'm a big fan of phil debates. Read whatever philosophy you want.

If you are reading a very obscure theory, clear explanations, especially in later speeches, are very helpful. Also, being clear on interactions with opposing theories is nice.

My defaults are: presumption and permissibility negate.

> Theory / T

I'm also a big fan of theory. Feel free to read whatever shells you want.

My defaults shouldn't really matter, but they are: fairness is a standard, education is a standard, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater.

> Tricks

I used to read tricks quite often. Read whatever you want, but obviously, the worse the trick, the lower the bar for a true response. Go slowly or be clear through dense analytics. Also, collapse well. Clean and funny tricks debates are sick.

> Policy

Weigh and explain your arguments well. I understand policy, but I may get lost in super dense, fast arguments that are less explained. But still, read whatever.

> Ks

I had the least experience with Ks in debate. I will still judge anything you want to read, but make sure you explain the arguments you are going for well in later speeches. Also, make sure interactions and weighing are clear.

This shouldn't matter, but my default role of the ballot is truth testing.

> JVLD:

If both competitors agree to have a full varsity-level round, then that's cool. Refer to the VLD section above.

Otherwise, I expect JVLD to be an intermediary between NLD and VLD. Spreading should not be at full speed (I should be able to catch everything without a doc). Tricks should be limited and clearly marked in docs. Theory and T should be limited to widely read shells. Phil should be kept to relatively sane theories. Ks should be limited to more widely read theories or popular theories in literature (i.e., if you cut your own novel K but it's popular outside of debate, that's cool). Have fun with policy, though (if it's tricky, refer to my remarks on tricks). Etc...

There should be some difference between JVLD and VLD. Generally, the line relates to education. If an argument helps prepare debaters for varsity or is not too anti-educational, then it's okay. Winning off of a tiny technicality is generally discouraged.

I do realize the line can be unclear, so feel free to email me or message me on FB if you have any questions.

> NLD:

Cases should have a FW and contentions. Be respectful to each other (especially during cross).

Don't forget to weigh. Don't forget to meta-weigh. Please explain interactions between arguments. Definitely extend your arguments. Good strategy helps a lot, too. Also, specifying an order before your speech is good.

At the end of the day, novice debate is about learning. Have fun and try to learn as much as you can.

Notes for NLD for more advanced debaters (if you don't know what I mean here, then don't worry about this). No spreading. Cases should have only one off (the FW and case itself should be that one off). The 1AR shouldn't have new offs. No theory, K, T, tricks, plans, or counter plans.

Conal Thomas-McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School 6 rounds

Everest Yang Lexington HS 6 rounds

Charles Zenhausern Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 3:36 PM EST

Hey goofs, I'm Charles

I debated LD at Harrison High School for two years, and I'm attending Brandeis University. I've won a few tournaments in JV and varsity divisions, so feel free to run a slew of argument types (see Shortcut). I don't care if you sit, or stand, or lay down. Online, I don't care about having your camera on. Time yourselves porfa. Above all, this is an educational activity, so be kind, informative, and clear.I want to be on the email chain even if no one else is ... zenhausernc@gmail.com

LD:

YOU (average LARP debater) DON'T WANT TO PREF ME! I WOULD CONSIDER MYSELF A TRAD FLOW JUDGE. Even though I know stuff, a lot of the "stuff" is not stuff I want to evaluate, or can keep up with. LD circuit debate is kinda stinky at times, so I encourage you to be the different round that I hear. That being said, I have experience in most of the circuit. Just know that while I can keep up with some spreading, I have a quite low threshold for super speed and will clear you. To quote Thomas Berg's paradigm (in the context of tricks, but I'm applying it to spreading), if you lose the round because "I don’t understand the third sub point of your 22nd underview don’t post round me and say i didn’t warn you." Just make sure that what you spread through is on the doc, signpost with all your heart, and it should be peachy keen, Avril Lavigne. Flex prep? More like, yes prep. I'm ALWAYS ready for CX, I love CX :)

Shortcut:

TraK - HIGH SUPREME 1

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 1

Interesting Phil - 2 (Pragmatism, some deont, burdens NCs, etc.)

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

Theory - 4 minus

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

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring, overplayed, but I GUESS I have to evaluate :(

TraK: You've probably stumbled upon this thinking 'What in the heck is even that?" TraK is the mixture of Trad and K debate. I was above all a TraK debater. It's all about reading kritikal arguments with a trad approach. If you pull up in a round and do this effectively you win at life.

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 epic (please do perform!), but not without its faults. I used to run a non-topical Aff, so I can vote on yours, and will be less lenient towards T against one. Please, please explain what your method is, otherwise you can't claim 'methods debates first' since you aren't even explaining what you want to do.

Trad: I prefer trad over most styles of debate. However, I think it can be sucky if it's not creative. So please, feel free to have fun, goof a little, but remain clear. I think my favorite style of debate is a mixture of kritikal arguments in a trad format (or TraK, as the cool kids call it nowadays).

Interesting Phil: Honestly, I should have this lower. People see this and think "yep, imma read Kant," so if your interpretation of interesting phil is complex or just circuit standard, then GET OUT (just kidding, but I feel unable to evaluate those rounds). Complicated stuff, always wished I ran more interesting phil. I see this stuff as more fun than anything else. A not so fine line between things like burdens NCs and Kant or Baudrillard, so don't confuse these. 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 freaking 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...my brain feels sticky, and I get worried I’m evaluating the round incorrectly. I believe that theory debate is a question of reasonability, that is to say, the burden heavily lies on the person reading the shell to justify why the violation reasonably warrants DTD or whatever you go for. In this way, I have a preference for reasonability over competing interps, and rounds that devolve to theory tend to do so over what the interp is, which is the definition of irresolvable because no one gives a reasonable warrant for which one is better. I also love the RVI! Naturally, only go for it if you think you're winning the shell, but I have little apprehension to vote on it. Theory debate in the squo is heavily focused on setting the norm, so much so that it can justify the most extreme punishment for minimal harm of a violation, which is why I err on the side of reasonability and the RVI.

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 yucky to me.

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 would hate if this ages well, and you think, "Looking back on my life, I see I was surrounded by foolishness. - 2023" If tricks 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.

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 be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story!

As a brief underview: I love a good silly, goofy, quirky kinda round, so have lots of fun with your cases and your speeches! That being said, be nice, and be kind to all.

Jianhua Zhou Lexington HS 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

Judges