Tabroom.com

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Novice PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Talia Askenazi Arlington High School

Abhi Boyanapalli Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 7:22 AM EST

Hi everyone I’m Abhi, a junior at Lexington HS. I don’t expect novices to ask for lots of evidence, but I advise starting an email chain because it’s good practice. Please add me at26stu011@lexingtonma.org if you do start one!

If you have any questions about my paradigm or about debate in general, feel free to email me or ask before round :)

I will always disclose the decision with RFD so long as all the debaters in the room are fine with it and the tournament allows.

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

If you're in a rush, here's a

TLDR: Bolded stuff = important stuff. I’m a tech judge and I really like to see good strategies executed well, even if they are simple. Adapt to me in terms of content (ie. you can run extinction impacts all you like), but don’t sacrifice your natural style of debating that makes you feel comfortable. Finally, don't be problematic (if it ends in -ism, don't try it).

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

--- General stuff ---

Clarity: being clear in speech and explaining arguments is very helpful for my ballot. You can reasonably clear your opponents as well. This also includes organizing points and responses (ie. signposting).
Speed: i can somewhat flow fast, but don’t go too fast. If you're going above 250 wpm send a speech doc and if you're going above 300 wpm, policy is in the building across :)

Evidence:
- I’m fine with paraphrasing but have cut cards ready - if you can’t produce evidence for an argument that isn’t an analytic it’s crossed off my flow.
- Do not violate NSDA rules on representing evidence - it’s an auto L with low speaks.
- If a round boils down to one card that is slightly miscut, (eg. to over-exaggerate impacts), but isn’t as egregious as NSDA violations, then it depends on if the other side calls it out and tells me why it is bad. If not, I will treat the rhetoric as real, but if I do notice it in round, I will give really low speaks, even if you win.
- Do evidence comparison! It is really good for shaping my ballot and remember to give a reason as to why your evidence is better.

Tech > truth: remember to warrant your arguments well for it to win on my flow and my ballot - I will not vote off an argument that I can't explain each part of, even if it's cleanly extended.
Time: i will stop flowing after time and let you finish your sentence. I used to think grace periods are okay in novice year, but it isn't how a lot of debates work in varsity. Please time yourselves and your opponents if you like.

Presumption: if I can't vote off any offense for either side, I presume whichever team that defends the status quo.

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

Cross:

I won’t flow it but I will listen to it. If there’s something important that happens, bring it up in your next speech. Remember that there is a line between being assertive and being rude, don’t cross the line because part of your speaks come from cross. I dislike hearing ranting in cross or turning it into a speech, it gets annoying.

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

How I evaluate on the flow:

The round for me comes down to weighing on both sides. If you win the weighing debate, you win the round, insofar as what you weigh with have been extended throughout the round. Be comparative when you weigh, which includes meta-weighing! Saying “we outweigh on magnitude, our impact hurts 4 million people” without interaction with your opponent’s impact is not comparative. I buy that strength of link counts as probability weighing and if I don't get any weighing at all, I will probably default to that.

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

Framework:

I will evaluate them but please warrant it well. Remember to extend the ROTB/ROTJ in every speech unless you somehow aren't going for framework anymore. Always explain why your framework matters even if it is the only framework in the round and if it isn't, tell me why your framework should be evaluated first.

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

Back half (summary + final):

Please start collapsing during the summaries, you can also collapse in the rebuttals if you like. It makes the debate less messy if collapsing happens earlier than later. I advise to not go for everything.

Any new arguments or brand new responses that are brought up past second summary will not be evaluated. I see the final focus as a speech supposed to mirror and extend summary weighing and if the second summary brings new weighing, for the first speaking team to respond to that. Brand new weighing in final focus, unless responsive, in 2nd final, won’t be evaluated at all.

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

My takes on debate as a high school activity:

While I do agree that PF is more of a persuasive style of debating, I think a large part of it is also strategy and how you use what you know and researched. I like seeing good strategies being executed well. This doesn’t mean that if you are more comfortable going slow with heavy rhetoric, to just switch your style, but it does mean to adapt in terms of what you say and what you leave out.

If your strategy is to have stock contentions that you can frontline very well, do that. If your strategy is to purposefully say different types of arguments in the rebuttals to force your opponents into going for a weaker argument, do that. At the end of the day, high school debate is quite literally a game and in my opinion, you should have the space to adapt to each judge without coming at the cost of throwing away who you are as a debater.

If you are a novice skip the next part!

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

--- Progressive Arguments ---

For any progressive arguments or pre-fiat impacts, tell me why it matters above substance/anything post-fiat and why I should look at it first on my ballot.

Theory:

Competing interps > reasonability, you can try convincing me otherwise.
If you’re gonna run friv, at least have some warranting in it.
I have my own beliefs on theory shells, but I won’t let that influence the round.
RVIs are a bit weird to me. I don’t exactly understand why someone should be voted up because they proved that they were being fair. I suppose, the shell can be a timesuck, but I feel that winning an RVI claim isn’t enough to really win the debate. Responding directly to the shell might honestly be better and more clear of a path to the ballot.

Kritks:

I'm not really familiar with them, run at your own risk.
If you do run them, please be slow and explain each part of the K, especially where I come in as the judge/my ballot.
I would prefer it if you don’t try anything high lit or phil. There’s a higher chance than not that even after some explanation, I still won’t understand it.
- I somewhat understand some of the most basic ideas behind post-modernism Ks, but I honestly don't understand fully how they function in a debate round proper.

Tricks:

I don't see a point in them - but if you do run it, at least give me one warrant (it can be an ice spice warrant I don't care).
If you spread through it so fast that even I don't hear it, I won't evaluate it.
If you're gonna run tricks aimlessly with 0 warrant, LD is in the adjacent building.

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

---Speaks ---

I start at 29 unless you were rude or did/said something problematic (ie. -isms)

Mostly based off strat and cross

I don't care if you sit or stand or what you wear; be comfy and that's all that matters :)

Post round me if you like! I would be more than happy to show my flow and where I voted if it isn't clear enough in my RFD. If you manage to convince me that I made a mistake in the decision, I owe you!

If you need to make up something mid-round, roll with it and don't hesitate.

If the other team calls you out on it, double down and good luck.

Have fun and be confident! (it goes a long way, trust)

Also Big Thanks to Deanna Ma for the Paradigm Inspo!!!!

Kevin Browne St. John's High School

Pramsu Chivukula Lexington HS

Joonsung Chyung Lexington HS

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 5:11 AM EST

Send speech docs: 26stu278@lexingtonma.org

Lexington High School 2026

Hi, I’m a Junior in PF for Lexington.

If you want me to clarify something about my paradigm feel free to ask before round!

FOR LD:

I have never judged or debated LD so treat me like a first time parent judge (don't read crazy jargon or super deep complex philosophy)! Extend your case throughout, weigh, and warrant your arguments! Please read cut cards and send speech docs.

FOR PF:

TLDR: Be nice and don't be abusive; Send a doc if you spread; Explain your warrants; Extend whatever you want me to vote for; Weigh; Have fun!

Tech>Truth

Speed is okay but I don’t like spreading super super fast since the round should be accessible (it’s novice pf) and it's harder for everyone to flow. If you do want to spread (>250wpm) then please send docs (my email is above).

Please do not say anything offensive or hateful. There is a difference between being assertive and being mean. Also have fun bc debate is supposed to be fun!

To win my ballot try to make your argument as frictionless as possible for me to vote for. This means three things for me:

1) Read warrants

2) Extend your link chain in full

3) Weigh (and when you weigh, compare your impact against their impact and why it's more important)

When I say read warrants, it means don't just read a bunch of cards with only one line highlighted that say doing X leads to Y. It is very important to me that you have reasoning to back up your arguments (use words like "this is because"). If I can understand the reasoning behind your argument then it becomes a lot clearer and easier for me to vote for. This also means that when you extend your argument don't just say "vote for our argument on climate change because it will lead to extinction". For me to evaluate an argument, you need to extend the full link chain with warrants. Extend your uniqueness, your link chain, and impact. (But also don't just reread your cards. A good example of what to do is you can say something like "our argument on ___ is the best place to vote: Right now things are good because ___, but doing X leads to Y due to ___. Then, doing Y leads to Z because ___ and that's bad because ___"). If there is clash on your arguments, extend your responses and explain the implication behind why your responses counter their argument. Weighing is also really important for me to be able to evaluate your arguments. This means don't just reread a number and say "voting aff means we get X improvement to the economy" or "voting neg means we prevent Y deaths". It is very important that you compare the impacts in the round and explain why yours is more important to prioritize.

Basically, a good argument is one where I don't really have to think hard about it and I don't have to use my own brain to connect the dots. Your arguments should be clear and I should be able to understand them using just the words you say.

When it comes to the format of your speeches, please give an off time road map, signpost throughout, and make your voters really really clear so I know how to write my RFD. Extend everything you want to gain offense from (including turns) through to final focus if you want me to evaluate it. If you want to extend a card, don’t just say the author (like just saying "Extend Smith 23") and please read the warranting! Collapsing is also probably a good idea just for your own time management.

In terms of evidence, I think it's extremely important to have cut cards. DO NOT PARAPHRASE

I also think if you are going to read a card, it needs to have warranting attached to it otherwise it's hard for me to evaluate it. A good, well-warranted analytic will always be better than a card lacking warranting.

If you badly miscut a card, lie about a date, or lie that you have a card when you don’t, then I will probably not like that and won't evaluate the argument!

If you make brand new arguments in second summary/ the final focuses I will probably not evaluate it and if your opponents call it out I definitely won't evaluate it.

Once you go 10 seconds over your speech time I stop listening.

Turns, especially impact turns, are by far my favorite responses so I'd be happy to evaluate them! (unless they say something genuinely problematic is good) Just make sure that if you want to extend offense on turns you also have to explain the full link chain. This means extending their argument, then your turn so that I can hear the full link chain. (For example, if you go for an impact turn, you can't just extend it by saying something like climate change is good. Instead, you should extend their argument by saying something like climate change is intensifying right now but will be reduced by the aff AS PER THEIR EVIDENCE. That's bad because climate change is actually a good thing etc...)

Don’t read counterplans/alts, PF is not Policy. Please do not read arguments that will be inaccessible to novices like theory or kritiks unless your opponents do something SERIOUSLY abusive or offensive (topicality is cool though but idc if you read it in shell format, just explain why their argument is nontopical and I shouldn't evaluate it). If you do go for a more progressive argument just know I probably won't understand it and won't know how to vote for it!

Frameworks like SV are usually okay but if you are going to read one make sure you actually know how to read it. I default to util otherwise.

If there is really no offense left in the debate and everything is a total wash, I presume neg (but if you read other presumption warrants I can easily presume off that).

Uri Darom Cambridge Rindge and Latin

Ishaan Deepak Lexington HS

Summer Feng Byram Hills High School

Sophia Guo Lexington HS

Saisha Gupta Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2024 at 3:49 AM EST

Hi everyone! I'm currently a Senior at Lexington High School (Co2025) and I'm in my 4th year of debating in Public Forum. If you have any questions post-round or if setting up an email chain for evi my email is 25stu468@lexingtonma.org

My overall TL;DR: don't be any -ists or perpetuate any -isms, and in an ideal world be topical, but honestly I can evaluate what you want to run, just make it really clear to me because if I can't explain your argument back to you, I won't vote on it. Signposting is important, besides just the name of your card (i.e.Last name Year). Time yourselves because I won't flow more than 5 seconds over time! If you want to appeal the most to me and my style of judging, read the rest of my paradigm :)

PRO TIP FOR NOVICES -- If you have no clue what else to say and you have lots of time left, try re-explaining something that you think is important/wasn't clear earlier or just weigh+metaweigh to the end of your time. Don't feel pressured or scared about saying the right thing, take it easy but try throwing everything you got into your speeches because you can only learn from what you try.

In LD:

I'm really not that experienced with LD so treat me as a "flay" of sorts. I can understand and evaluate framing as well as substance perfectly fine. I'm good evaluating Ks and Theory as long as you thoroughly explain your framing/ROTB/Interp+standards+voters because again I won't vote off something I can't read back to you -- for more detail read the prog part of my pf paradigm. I'll default speaks to 28.5 in LD and similar criteria as in PF to increase/decrease. I also don't judge LD often so this may not even apply but just in case!

In PF:

Here's how I will be voting:

I am a flow judge, however, if you do not signpost, you're risking that your point may get missed as I try to find where on the flow you are.
When signposting, please briefly reference the material in your cards and not just the tagline, so that your argument can fit better together with the relevant pieces of your evidence. In the case that your opponents or I miss your tagline or author name it could also be very confusing to everyone when you reference some obscure "Day 24" by itself.
If you need to exchange evidence, I will time prep from when you get the card and start reading it. This doesn't mean you take forever to find the card, please try to take no more than 15ish seconds to find it. If you set one up, I'd like to be added to an email chain. It will only impact my decision if there's a piece of evidence that's hotly debated or referenced throughout the round.
I'm okay with spreading up to 300 wpm if you provide a speech doc before your speech. If you spread off your flow in the backhalf I think it's okay not to send a full speech doc but ideally please do just because I don't want to miss anything important.
I am generally tech over truth, I prefer arguments that are made better and I will generally vote on the flow. If it comes down to me that the weighing is unclear and I have to make a decision (assuming there's a util framework) I'll generally default to "truthier" arguments/impacts unless there is a significant difference in magnitude with unclear probability weighing on both sides.
PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES! I will stop flowing 5 seconds over time and keep time to check, but not remind you when to stop. If you notice your opponents go over time and I'm still flowing, knock the table twice just to let me know they are over time and I'll stop.
Cross Etiquette: I will not flow cross and tbh I don't pay attention often to cross because usually I'll be working on my ballot, but I do want a civil, alternating question-and-answer format rather than a one-sided interrogation or a mutual screaming match. That being said, if you guys are not dialoguing at all and there's no real interaction then I'll deduct some speaks (like 0.1-0.2). The first speaking side should ideally take the first question but it doesn't impact my decision so it's fine either way if you feel like it. Please do not go over time, if you need to respond to the last question I'll give you a few seconds, but if you start a long response please wrap it up ASAP (don't keep going for more than 10 seconds). If any points stand out to me, I will also take notice, use your cross to your advantage, and don't waste it.
Prog is fine, but at least run at your own risk. I somewhat know how to vote off some progressive arguments such as disclosure/paraphrase theory, topical Ks, and a few of the more common non-T Ks, however, I don't have prior context for common lit except for Ahmed's Killjoy so if you run lit you have to thoroughly warrant it and if possible overexplain it to me to be doubly sure I understand. For frivolous theory/non-T Ks: don't run them if you can't properly make a solid case around it and make everyone's lives more complicated. Severance is bad for your speaks and I'm somewhat responsive to severance shells read in round if it comes to that, so again don't run arguments you're not sure you can defend throughout the round. If you violate your own shell, credibility goes down the drain and I will tank your speaks at minimum, drop you with awful speaks at worst.
Frameworks(Framing): I love framing debates so much, however that doesn't mean introduce an unwarranted framing at the top of your case and never mention it again. I will vote off frameworks if they are extended throughout the round (ideally at the top of each speech), and you prove why you win on a framework debate. If you are proposing a framework as a response to your opponents, I expect the framework you propose to be extended from rebuttal (or if the fw is proposed after case, whatever the next speech your team has) to the end. Keep your frameworks relevant to your case because I literally can't vote for you if your impact doesn't fall under the winning framework, even if it is your own.
To win my vote you want to have a good balance of your strongest offense and defense, you want to address clash in the round, and you want to convince me to prefer your impacts. I will be looking mostly at the summary and final focus for you to clean up the round, but please extend the points you want to keep to the end in both the summary and final. I won't evaluate new arguments past 1st summary except if you're responding to an argument introduced in the first summary (in which case the second summary can briefly respond).

Speaker Points:

I'll default speaker points to a28 but it's really easy to increase speaks: this is only assuming you don't stand out at all in the round (which is more difficult than it sounds).

I will increase speaker points for clear enunciation, good argumentation, and keeping crossfire engaging and civil. If you capture my attention (in a positive way) and keep me engaged, that would also be good for your speaks. This is generally the scale I see in the Varsity PF circuit, so I'm keeping similar standards as I judge because that's personally what I'm used to.

I will decrease speaker points for ANY offensive language or actions (racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. will be an automatic 25, if this behavior is repeated through the round I will tank it EVEN further and report to your coach so that they can take further action as needed), reading sensitive topics without a content warning beforehand (although if it's an honest mistake and you correct it going forward you should be fine), swearing in the round (unless it's performance but my threshold is low for swearing excessively and even lower for swearing out of performance), going consistently over time (as in over 15 seconds every speech/during cross), and other inappropriate or disruptive behaviors that hinder the progress of the debate. If you violate your own shell, read prog on novs who have absolutely no clue what you just said, then I'll still evaluate the round fairly but your speaks will tank so hard that even if you break you'll be put in a tough bracket anyways.Honestly, I think it's very hard to decrease speaks beyond 27 so long as you're a decent human.

Xiaorui Hang Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 4:56 AM EST

Hello! My name is Xiaorui Hang and I am a varsity debater for Lexington High School. I am experienced in Lincoln-Douglas debate and with the topic. I was born in China and moved to America a few years ago. English is not my first language, but you can probably trust me that I know what you’re saying. You can call me Raymond.

I am one of the best video game player in NA, with award winning performance in Honor of Kings, League of Legends, Tetr.io, and Pokemon both VGC and TCG! Feel free to talk to me about videogame :)

Yes I want to be in the email chain: xiaoruihang@gmail.com. Send me the speech doc on time or early. Disclosure is a good practice! Please send your doc. You should at least try to read different cases than your team! I recognize that it is a very common thing to do but it does get VERY boring after judging several rounds of the same case. Your speaks will reflect this!

Evidence ethics is very very important! Do not miscut cards, and do not use sources like Reddit. If your opponent violates evidence ethics in any way, bring it up to me immediately.

Preference:

Ks / Performance
Phil
Theory
Util is a ew
Trix is a no

As a general note, don't go for too many argument late into the round: collapse and crystalize. Don't make me do the thinking: tell me what to write on my reasons for decision. Give voters and signpost clearly. Also, remember to weigh between layers and in different layers

I have read a lot of arguments so far. I settled on reading Kaff, and I mainly read postmodern Ks on neg

Defaults:

Neg win on presumption
Condo good, PIC good
Theory is drop the argument, no reverse voting issue.
Layers: T -> Theory -> K -> Framework -> Substance
Debate is good or else you wouldn't participate in it
CP's have to be both functionally and definitionally competitive.
Do not post-round. You can not change my decision. Feel free to ask me any questions, however.

You can spread (<320 wpm), be as progressive as you want, literally make whatever argument you want in round as long as it doesn't support any discrimin. If you do, I will probably instantly drop you with an L 25.

Have fun! Debate is a game after all. Winning and losing don't matter as much as having fun in the game.

Brian Jia Lexington HS

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 5:04 PM EST

Hey everyone!
Brian Jia - CX debater @ Lexington High School ‘26

2A/1N

He/Him/His

heruighi [at] gmail.com put me on the email chain pls

Biggest thing you should know is that I'm chill with everything (within reason). Unless you're doing something harmful there's no reason to ask if I'm okay with something :)

Paradigm

I really could not care less what you run or how you run it. My baseline is no blatant -ism or -ists, and I will not hesitate to give you an L +0 if it occurs - but I’m okay with literally everything else. Don’t try to push this line - if you have to ask, it’s probably not a good sign.
Be nice: being aggressive is fine - I understand people might get heated in a debate, but use common sense and always remember to attack the argument not the person!! No ad hominem or I will dock speaks accordingly.
Only thing I will judge intervene for is blatant misrepresentation of evidence. Don’t do it, even if your opponents don’t catch it.

I will not do the work for anyone for any other situation - write my ballot for me in your second rebuttals.

I’m good with tricks (though I will lean against it because they typically are pretty stupid and any kind of good response probably takes it out).
I’m fine for most standard Ks but if it’s some high theory stuff that uses crazy jargon explain it to me like you would a non-debater.

To that extent if you’re using overly complicated words for the purpose of confusing your opponent you’ll probably end up confusing me as well.

Basically I am very heavily tech > truth and I am fine voting on anything if it is properly impacted out and makes some semblance of sense.

Speed: I’m fine with speed, but clarity above all always!! I will yell “clear” as many times as I have to but if it’s egregious your speaks will drop.

Roadmap, signpost, line by line are really cool :D

Remember to impact calc and weigh!! I can’t determine which argument is better than which if you don’t and as you probably know by now I will be very sad if I have to do your work for you.

Generally follow debate etiquette and we chill

Remember that debate is not that deep and you should always have fun!!

Feel free to post-round me or to ask any questions you might have. Good luck!

Raitah Jinnat The Bronx High School Of Science

Prathamesh Joshi Westborough High School

Pranay Kocheta Lexington HS

Lexington High School 2026

This is my third year debating PF did one year in novice two years varsity.

Add 26stu444@lexingtonma.org to email chain

TLDR: Tech > truth, read whatever you want in terms of substance (more below). Could read K’s and theory but im not the best at it do it at your own risk. If speaking fast send speech doc. No sticky defense or offense (extend through speeches). Implicate stuff if you want it evaluated properly. WEIGHING needed (more below). Have fun - watching fun rounds makes it more enjoyable to judge

Constructive: Read at a pace where your actually understandable you aren’t helping yourself trying to read lightspeed but no one can understand. In terms of what your reading, squirrly is fun if you can actually run it and have the evidence for it. Don’t miscut things just to run squirrly.

Rebuttal: Numbering responses cool. Second rebuttal has to frontline

Summary: WEIGH - use comparative weighing and actually apply the weighing to the round. Why is probability more important than magnitude? Why is 2 million people in poverty more important than 100 people dead? If you don’t extend stuff like turns, defense, or case properly its going to be a rough ff and road to the ballot. I will flow new responses in 2nd summary but if the opponent says even 2 words about it its off the flow most likely. COLLAPSE WHEN EXTENDING CASE AND MAKE SURE IT’S CLEAR.

FF: Offense over defense at the end of the day it’s best to win of your case (unless your going for turns). That also means more WEIGHING. The weighing needs ot be an extensions of whats said in summary, dont bring in new weighing ff. 2nd FF don’t bother trying new responses or “applications of responses” its not getting flowed most likely. Full extensions and implications on everything you want evaluated.

Other:

Evidence ethics: If your opponent messed a card and it has a major impact on the round blow it up and I will blow it up on the flow and RFD
If your going to paraphrase send full cut cards in email chain also
If you think your opponent is prep stealing call it out, if your wrong probably going to drop speaks a bit but if right its going to make it an easier round for you
I listen to cross mainly for speaks and to keep track of the round but if something important happens that you want to bring up later, give a bit of context during that and of course implicate it
Please have some fun during the round
If your going to be aggressive during cross make sure your still nice, overagressive = lower speaks

Abhaya Kuchibhotla Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 7:33 AM EST

Hi! I am a junior in high school in varsity PF and have debated in PF for 3 years.

Tech>Truth, but flay leaning

Email: 26stu010@lexingtonma.org , add me to the email chain

General Speech Things: Tech>Truth, I like offtime roadmaps, SIGNPOST PLEASE, weighing good (especially link-in's, prereqs, etc) please do not just say magnitude and scope. Also, please collapse on something, even if they don't attack any of your arguments still collapse. Be kind, if anyone is overly aggressive, rude, or anything-ist they are immediately dropped. But overall don't get too stressed, and have fun!

Speed

I don't love speed, especially if it makes the speech unclear. So if you expect to be going fast, just send me a speech doc.

Rebuttal

In every speech I want signposting, and 1st rebuttal should actually respond to opponents case. For the second rebuttal, I expect frontlining as well, I don't care too much if second rebuttal chooses to extend now or by summary. Also I love it when people say what was conceded, but it has to be true.

Summary

By summary an argument has to be extended, along with any blocks or frontlines you are collapsing on. When extending please extend the whole link and impact, don't just say the name of the contention or subpoint. Weighing is also extremely necessary, and the weighing should be comparative. Also, please implicate the weighing, and tell me why your weighing mechanism is better. Finally, no new responses should be coming up.

Final Focus

No new responses in this speech, please signpost, weigh, and extend everything again. Pretty much same criteria for summary.

Crossfire

Crossfire is for you and your opponent only, and I will not be paying much attention. Also even if I am not paying total attention, I can still hear so if anyone is super aggressive or rude, it will mean low speaks. If something important comes up in cross that you want me write down, bring it up in any speech.

Speaker Points

If you are clear and kind you will probably get good speaks.

Theory:

I'm open to hearing anything, but I am not great at judging prog arguments so run at your own risk.

Karis Lee Byram Hills High School

MinJoon Lee Lexington HS

Kenneth Lu Lexington HS

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 11:55 PM EST

Hello!

I am a senior at Lexington High School, I've competed in Varsity PF for 2 years and Varsity LD for 1 year. I am still actively competing, so you can treat me like a tech judge. You can add me to any email chains or speech docs: kennethlu7@gmail.com

General Info (tl;dr):

In general, I'm fine with you reading any argument in the round as long as everyone in the round is being respectful and people aren't being overly heated or problematic. Just remember - at the end of the day, it's just a debate tournament.

I'm pretty comfortable with speed but you should definitely be making sure everything you say is clear and comprehensible. I'm fine with spreading but if I don't catch anything, it's not going to be evaluated on the flow. I will also shout "Clear" or "Slow" if you are going excessively fast, but I will almost definitely be able to keep up with the speed at this level.

Tech > truth - I'll evaluate any argument on the flow as long as it isn't problematic in any way. In terms of what counts as problematic - just use common sense, if you have to think about it, it probably is. I'll vote off whatever arguments win on the flow. This doesn't mean you can ignore warrants though. Just because you say "X leads to extinction" doesn't mean you do have an extinction impact. You need to warrant out why you lead to an extinction impact.

Speaker points are based on articulation and just being a nice person. If you articulate your arguments in a way that is easy to understand and treat everyone in the round nicely, you'll probably get good speaks. Some general things you can do that will increase speaks: signposting, good extensions, ordering speech well, explaining warrants and implications, etc. I like to think that I am pretty generous with speaks.

Feel free to ask me before round on any of my preferences and after the round if there was anything about the round you had questions on. I'm always free to clarify anything you're confused about and help you in any way possible.

Generally keep your own time, I'll probably be timing as well, but it will be your responsibility to keep time. I'll probably cut you off if you are grossly over the time limit though.

I've been asked by debaters what specific terms in my paradigm mean - if you're a novice and especially if this is your first/second debate, I don't expect you to know all of these terms, and I am fine with you asking me beforehand to explain whatever doesn't make sense on my paradigm. Chances are that some of what I say won't be super relevant to you, especially the section on specific arguments, but I do think it is beneficial for you to understand some of the basic stuff on here.

If you are debating novice PF: Please don't run progressive arguments unless both sides agree to it and even then I would prefer if you don't.

General argumentation stuff:

I evaluate the round layer by layer - if there's theory/t, K's, or anything pre-fiat, that is evaluated first unless I am told otherwise. I then move on to substance by evaluating weighing, then looking at links and clear warrants.

Extend and collapse in the back half of the round - Make sure you are always extending through only your strongest pieces of offense or defense in the last few speeches. You probably won't have time to extend through everything in your first few speeches and if the last few speeches end up being "extend through my first contention, the Smith 13 card, ...", I probably won't evaluate those extensions. You need to be at least bringing up all the warranting from uniqueness to impact.

Because this has been an issue in rounds, I'm reiterating this: please remember to extend. "Extend our c2 on climate change" is not an extension. At the very least, I need uniqueness, link, and impact extended with warrants.

Always weigh - You should be telling me how to view the round and which impacts to prioritize, I can't evaluate a round if both teams have access to impacts and don't weigh at all. It ends up just being based on strength of link, so it's your job to make sure that you tell me how to vote.

Evidence debates - I won't look at evidence unless it becomes a major point in deciding the round. For sharing evidence, I'm fine with whatever is convenient for both teams, speech doc, email chain, whatever works. If there does end up being miscut or power tagged evidence that the other team points out, you will lose speaks and potentially the ballot if the other team gives a strong enough warrant.

I won't flow cross, so if anything important is conceded, you have to bring it up in a speech.

I would prefer to see you line by lining down the flow so you touch on all the points of the debate.

You should be signposting so that it is clear where you are on the flow. You shouldn't be jumping around on the flow and making me confused where to flow which argument, otherwise I might not evaluate an argument how you intended or I might miss it altogether.

You should be reading off evidence, I would prefer it if you read tag, citation, then body.

I presume Neg - If somehow, the entire debate has no offense standing for either side at the round, I presume neg unless either team makes a presumption argument telling me otherwise. Rounds probably shouldn't come down to this if teams are debating reasonably though.

PF specifics:

Considering I will probably be judging novice, I would really prefer if you don't read progressive arguments in novice PF - many of you probably don't know what those are and that's how it probably should be. Especially if it's clear that something like one team has an extensive background on theory and is reading it against first-time debaters is happening, I will at the very least dock speaks and you could lose the ballot depending on the situation. If both teams are fine with progressive arguments, I'm fine with evaluating those sorts of rounds, but I'll probably be a bit upset/dock speaks if you can't run it well. I am completely fine with you reading something like an SV framework, it's just arguments like K's and theory that I would prefer seeing less of at this level. I also believe that a lot of more progressive arguments such as K's don't have much of a place in PF given shorter speech times and structure of the style, but I am still willing to vote off it.

Frontlining should be happening in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary, weighing and collapsing should happen as early as possible, there can be a little by 2nd rebuttal and should definitely happen by 1st and 2nd summary. I won't evaluate new responses, so all your arguments and implications should be on the flow by summary. Also, in the majority of cases you should not be making new arguments in 2nd summary, 1st summary should be the last speech with completely new arguments otherwise there isn't a real chance to respond.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and final focus. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary.

I will evaluate the round based on the flow, but I would prefer to see a clear narrative at the end.

Also a lot of the stuff below on specific arguments probably doesn't apply to you, but you can still read it if you're interested.

LD specifics:

I'm fine with you reading whatever you want, I'm more of a PF debater, but I'm pretty familiar with most common argument types on the circuit and almost definitely anything you might be reading. The only things I really wouldn't have experience with are really obscure phil frameworks. Most likely you'll be doing trad debate anyway, which I'm very comfortable with. I'm also very comfortable with plan/cp policy debate.

You should be summing up the main voters and telling me how to weigh and vote on the major points of clash in the last speeches. Generally you probably shouldn't be reading anything new in 2AR and there should be very little that is new in 2NR and I really shouldn't be hearing new cards in these speeches.

If you want to engage in framework debate, make sure you are responsive to the opponent's framework and warrant out your own. I think framework is pretty important since it frames the lens I view the round under, but that doesn't mean you always need to contest it depending on the circumstances. I'm fine with basically any framework you want to read as long as you explain and warrant it out.

Specific Arguments:

Theory - I don't have an extensive history of debating like every type of theory argument, but I have a decent amount of experience with it and can comfortably evaluate it. Unless otherwise told, I default to competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater. I have a high threshold for evaluating frivolous theory - you can run it and I am fine with voting off of it, just know that I have a pretty low threshold for responses to these types of theory arguments. Remember to do standard stuff like weighing between standards and extending through the shell in every round.

T - Basically just theory except I have debated this a lot more and I think this is probably more relevant to you.

Kritiks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

If you have a well developed IVI like an evidence challenge IVI, I can vote off of it as long as it is well warranted, but if you are going to do an evidence challenge, I have been told by many people that you should be staking the entire round on it.

I am fine with prefiat framework - just remember to include cards and warrants to justify them. I have decent experience with things like general SV/Fem framework.

I am fine with you reading K's - I have experience debating them but I don't have extensive knowledge on K-lit, so you might need to do some more work in warranting and explaining it, and you should know your lit base. I'm most familiar with the common ones such as Security, Baudrillard, Killjoy, Imperialism, Cap, Academy, and Set Col but also have a general sense of many of the other popular K's on the circuit. As always, tell me how to evaluate the K, especially in something like in a K v. K debate.

You need to tell me what I should evaluate first, otherwise I evaluate theory first, then K's.

Phil/FW - I don't have that much knowledge on philosophy and have limited experience in framework debates, so err on overexplaining. I can still evaluate these sorts of rounds, it just means I have less experience with them so debate these at your own risk. Make sure you have real warrants for framework justifications.

Tricks - I have very little experience with these, so if you want me to vote off them, they better be really well explained. If you are trying to spread through a million blippy one liners that aren't fleshed out arguments, I definitely won't be voting on them.

Policy/Trad/Substance PF debate - these are the sorts of debates that I have the most experience with. Nothing much to say here, just do what you normally do and follow the general argumentation stuff I have on the top.

Alice Ma Lexington HS

Deanna Ma Lexington HS

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 4:49 PM EST

Hi everyone! I’m Deanna, a junior at Lexington HS, and I'm in my 3rd year of PF.

I debate actively on the local and nat circuit, so treat me as a tech and I won't be clueless on the topic.

I don’t expect novices to ask for lots of evidence, but I advise starting an email chain because it’s good practice. Please add me at deannamayq@gmail.com if you do start one!

If you have any questions about my paradigm (ie. acronyms that you may not know what it stands for) or about debate in general, feel free to email me or ask before round :)

I will always disclose my decision with a RFD so long as all the debaters in the room are fine with it and the tournament allows.

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

If you're in a rush to round, here's a

TLDR: Bolded stuff = important stuff.

I’m tech > truth and I will evaluate anything so long as it has a warrant and doesn't end in -ism.

Adapt to me in terms of content (ie. you can run extinction impacts all you like), but don’t sacrifice your natural style of debating that makes you feel comfortable.

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

--- General stuff ---

Clarity: being clear in speech and explaining arguments is very helpful for my ballot. You can reasonably clear your opponents as well. This also includes organizing points and responses (ie. signposting).
Speed: i can flow somewhat fast, but don’t go too fast. If you're going above 250 wpm send a speech doc and if you're going above 300 wpm, policy is in the building across :)

Evidence: always have cut cards ready and do not violate NSDA evi rules; that's a really easy way to getting an auto L with low speaks, if not DQ. Doing evidence comparison is great for shaping my ballot and always remember to include a reason why your evidence is better.
Cross: i love cross! I won't flow but I'll listen and if something important comes up, mention it in speech. Remember that there is a line between being assertive and being rude, don't cross that line because being rude will hurt your speaks.

Tech > truth: remember to warrant your arguments well for it to win on my flow and my ballot - I will not vote off an argument that I can't explain, even if it's cleanly extended.
Time: i will stop flowing after 5 seconds past time and let you finish your sentence. However, I should add that varsity debates just about never have grace periods so it is still best practice to stay within the allocated time.

Presumption: if I can't vote off any offense for either side, I presume whichever team that defends the status quo.

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

How I evaluate on the flow:

The round for me comes down to weighing on both sides. If you win the weighing debate, you win the round, insofar as what you weigh with have been extended throughout the round. Be comparative when you weigh, which includes meta-weighing! Saying “we outweigh on magnitude, our impact hurts 4 million people” without interaction with your opponent’s impact is not comparative. I buy that strength of link counts as probability weighing of the link (not the impact) and if I don't get any weighing at all, I will default to the team with the strongest link.

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

Framing/Framework:

I'm more than happy to evaluate them but please warrant it well. Remember to extend the ROTB/ROTJ in every speech unless you somehow aren't going for framework anymore. Always explain why your framework matters even if it is the only one in the round and if it isn't, tell me why your framework should be evaluated first.

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

Back half (summary + final):

Please start collapsing during the summaries, you can also collapse in the rebuttals if you like. It makes the debate less messy if collapsing happens earlier than later. As a 1st speaker myself, I advise to not go for everything!

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

My takes on debate as a high school activity:

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

*I feel like novices shouldn't be running progressive arguments so I'm omitting that in my paradigm, but feel free to ask about it regardless*

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

---Speaks ---

I start at 28.5 unless you were rude or did/said something problematic (ie. -isms)

I don't care if you sit or stand or what you wear; be comfy and that's all that matters :)

Post round me if you like! I would be more than happy to show my flow and where I voted if it isn't clear enough in my RFD. You can also email me later to ask; I always keep my flows.

Here's my partner's (Aryan Sethi) paradigm which I agree mostly with if y'all need more ideas on how I judge.

If you need to make up something mid-round, roll with it and don't hesitate.

If the other team calls you out on it, double down and good luck.

Have fun and be confident! (it goes a long way, trust)

Maysa Maryam The Bronx High School Of Science

Akash Meka Lexington HS

Aqeel Merchant Arlington High School

Roshni Mohan Newton South High School

Nihashi Nag Lexington HS

Ryan Qin Lexington HS

Ruolun Qiu Newton South High School

Natalie Ramirez Porras Ridge High School None

Jayven Rappa Newton North None

Yamin Reddick University High School None

Sagar Sarr Lakeland

Aryan Sethi Lexington HS

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 5:13 AM EST

ABOUT ME

Aryan Sethi: Junior at Lexington High School, MA, He Him, 1x TOC

sethiaryan2008@gmail.com

A good amount of PF National Circuit experience and Local experience

Tech>Truth: meaning the truth of an argument doesn't matter and I only evaluate what you tell me

Comfortable with speed and all types of arguments

Let me know about pronouns and names before the round

FOR LD

Do as you wish I feel comfortable evaluating all types of arguments except counterplans just over-explain on those a little bit.

IMPORTANT THINGS

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If this happens it will be a Tabroom issue

I have personal beliefs about norms and things. I try not to let it interfere. I might believe that climate change will cause extinction but if you read good arguments on me and win them I will just as easily buy that it doesn't cause extinction. Generally, Rules and norms are supposed to be debatable, so you won't see me giving you an L because of my out-of-round beliefs. So feel free to use this round to try things outside of your comfort zone since as a Judge it is my job to help you improve.

Debate how you feel comfortable--> This can include clothing sitting or standing during speeches and who you look at during cross. If there are any other accommodations please let me know I would love to help make this space as comfortable for you as possible.

Speaks

I follow tournament guidelines and NSDA guidelines for them however I do tend to be on the higher side and if you want on advice on how to improve feel free to ask pre-round but overall I give them based off: clarity, strategy, and most importantly if you are contributing to the fun and learning part of debate

EVIDENCE:

Don’t misconstrue evidence – paraphrasing is fine but please make sure you have good evidence ethics. I won't drop you for badly misconstrued evidence unless your opponents read args as to why I should.

I'll only look at/call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision.

When you extend evidence throughout every speech in the round, please extend the actual logic/warrant and not just the author name – I value the content over just flowing the card name and date.

SPEECH SPECIFIC

Constructive:

Please send out an email with all evidence being read in cut-card format it speeds the round-up and ensures good evidence ethics.

If you don't know what that is it is ok feel free to come up after the round and I can give resources/examples if needed.

All arguments are good except racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.

Speed is ok just maintain clarity and if it is going to be super fast just give a warning if you are debating in the novice division this should not be an issue but a heads-up is always nice

You don't have to repeat the resolution as I am always super updated on the topic.

5 sec grace period and then the pen is down

Cross

I don't flow cross but I do promise to listen if you want it to be evaluated in the decision make sure it is said in speech so that it is on my flow

First speaking team gets the first question

Please be nice to each other we are all here to have fun and learn so lets keep it that way

I get annoyed if you just rant on and on, so please don’t.

If you don't know the answer to the question try to dodge it and lie or if not you can always say I don't know but if you bring it up in speech we will respond don't just say my partner will tell you in his speech.

Please have fun and learn

Rebuttal:

Signpost, PLEASE: meaning tell me what argument and flow your own if you want an example feel free to ask pre round

2nd rebuttal does have to frontline/defend their case

Weighing isn't required but always helps

Case extensions aren't needed

Good analysis>card dump, but card dump is fine

WARRANT RESPONSES

Once again send all cards being read in cut card format

Summary

No new offense in summary.

First summary, you have to frontline.

Second summary, no new stuff except weighing/cross aps

Meta-weighing will win you a lot.

Please don’t make me weigh, but just in case I default to the cleanest link chain if it comes down to it.

COLLAPSE, PLEASE.

Go for one contention and maybe a turn, weigh both and you will win a lot more than you know.

SELL ME ON WARRANTS, not card names

FINAL FOCUS:

Just do what the summary did, but less. For example, choose to go for the turn OR contention AND WEIGH

This is what I vote off, if you want it on the ballot make sure it’s in final.

Even if you’re losing by final focus, you can still win, trust me.

Tell me why, where, and how I write my ballot.

Tell me warrants, I don’t care about cards, tell me the WHY.

Spoon feed the weighing to me.

There should be no new weighing. The first final can have a bit but the second final would be allowed to respond in that case.

Important NOTE v2

HAVE FUN and Learn

If you have any questions feel free to ask before or after the round about anything

If you disagree with a decision feel free to reach out via email and I would love to talk about it till you feel satisfied

You will always have my full attention

I am here as a tool after the round if you need help with looking over your case or anything at all just ask

Angela Shi Lexington HS

Amy Sun Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 4:40 PM EST

Lexington Winter Invitational updates: I'm getting over a cold, will prob be okay but let's keep germ spreading to a minimum - please do NOT shake my hand or sit toooo close. I'll have cough drops on hand if you would like any.

As of 1/15, I've lost my voice. Instead of oral RFDs, I'd rather collect everyone's contact information (email, phone #, or Instagram/FB are all okay) and I'll send my RFD online. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Hi! I'm Amy (she/her). I'm a third year LD debater competing for AB. You can call me by my name, or you can call me judge, idrc.

25suna@abschools.org

Add me to the email chain if there is one.

Judging Philosophy:

I lean tech > truth*. I´ll vote based on the flow and default to who is ahead on such flow, even if I dislike the arguments/think the arguments aren't very convincing, but in cases where rounds are difficult to resolve I might end up going for truth. I am not a judge that will arbitrarily vote for an argument that was the "most convincing" but had little-no impact in a round.

*I don´t think any judge can be 100% tech > truth and I don´t claim to be either. If you disagree with my decision, that´s ok but I hope you still can understand how I came to it :).

*The more true your argument is, the higher threshold I have for responses. That is, I would expect better responses to "the sky is blue" versus "the sky is red". I'd still vote on "the sky is red" if you win it though.

I´m pretty non-interventionist in the way I judge; of course, there are instances where I WILL intervene, but for the most part, assume I won´t. Especially in really close rounds, give me reason as to which arguments matter most. Weighing + voters become really important too. I won't ever intentionally intervene in a round without reason.

I´ll evaluate nearly any argument in a round, minus anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc and completely new arguments made in later speeches. This also means you can basically run whatever you want, as long as I can ID a claim, warrant, and impact.

I don't come into the round presuming a specific side! If you want me to presume your side, make that argument in round. IF at the end of round there are no presumption arguments AND I literally have no other way out, I will flip a coin on presumption.

I'm always improving as a judge, just as you all are improving at debate! I update my paradigm on a pretty regular basis as I continue to think of more important things to add.

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

General:

At least skim if you don't have the time to read everything.

Signpost and weigh please!!!!

I don't care if you stand or sit during the round. As long as I can hear you, we´re good.

Ask if everyone is ready before starting a speech!!

I may or may not be looking at you during your speech -- that doesn't mean anything; it doesn't mean I'm not paying attention, it's just that judging requires a lot of multitasking from me.

The lack of warrants I'm hearing in speeches and cases is something I'm not a fan of. I want to hear warrants in your arguments, don't just make assertions without explaining why A causes B.

idk why y´all aren´t answering the warranting in your opponent´s arguments - just because you hear your opponent say one word that might not apply to your case on the surface doesn´t mean they are making an irrelevant argument.

Many of you seem to assume that your arg flows through or is better than your opponent's simply because "I hAvE eViDeNcE" when your card just has like one highlighted/cited line in it that may (rhetorically) prove your arg but doesn't expand upon it. In other words, unwarranted evidence with good rhetoric cannot be used in place of a warrant to support an argument.

Just saying a random card name (e.g. "smith 21") isn't an extension.

You don't need evidence for every single thing you say. Of course, if you are saying something counterintuitive or something like "Russia is in China" , I'm not going to be very inclined to believe you unless you have good ev to support it, but I'm not going to be auto dropping people for not using evidence, and usually someone's lack of use of ev doesn't factor into my decision that much, if at all.

Use as much jargon as you want - I've been in debate for 4 years, I probs know what you're talking about.

Don't just rely on defensive arguments. In a game, if all you do is prevent your opponent from scoring but don't score anything for yourself, the final score is still 0-0.

Strategic concessions exist. Utilize them.

Blowing up a random concession that doesn't have impact on the round is not a convincing reason to win. Similarly, important concessions should be warranted out (i.e. "they conceded xyz, this means vote aff because...")

Please don't straw man, lie, etc. - it makes you look bad, and I'm not afraid to give out bad speaks for that kind of stuff. IF YOUR OPPONENT DOES IT, PLEASE CALL THEM OUT FOR IT!

No new arguments in the final speeches unless they are responsive to new stuff.
I do time speeches, but that is only for my own reference. YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN TIME!! This goes for both speeches and prep time. I do not believe in grace periods, so I will NOT flow new arguments that are said overtime - if those arguments are brought up again, I will ignore them (To clarify, if you started a saying something but ended like 3 seconds overtime I´m fine with that, but if you then would spend 5 extra seconds on another argument, I´m not flowing that extra argument).

I usually flow on paper - if it's towards the end of the day, slow down because my hand might be really sore lol. Also, keep in mind I can only flow as fast as I can write.

If you want a picture of my flow after round, let me know (or send me an email before the tournament ends).

Going >200 WPM = I need a speech doc.

I don't flow card authors.

Add trigger warnings to case if necessary; add one just in case if you're not sure. I´m compelled to drop a team for not giving TWs.

I'm going to be typing up feedback in your ballots during CX. If something comes up in CX, say it's from CX in your speech (e.g. "in cross my opponent conceded that...").

Always down for relaxed / informal rounds. Debate is way too serious sometimes.

Flex prep is fine.
Please don´t ask if you can take prep, give your speeches, etc. It´s your round, do whatever you want.

Online debate: it's better to go slower than quicker, especially if you know your internet is bad. Idc if you have your camera on or not, idc if you wear a suit or not.

Natcirc: RFDs/feedback won't be as comprehensive as what I would give if you were at locals (will most likely be disclosing orally and flights exist so I'll prob be extra tired lol). I'll disclose speaks if you ask. Don't post-round!!
NO ad homs, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Debate should be a safe space for all :)

Ask me any questions you have before round.

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

Speaks:

If you look at my judging records, you´ll see that I give out average speaks most of the time, but I´ve also given out very high and low speaks, sometimes in the same round. This means I am willing to give out 30s, and have done so in the past, but I´m also not afraid to give 26s (or lower) for whatever reason.
Speaks are determined by a mix of clarity, strategy, delivery, and efficiency, but will be mostly rewarded based on strategy. I will boost speaks a little (0.1 - 0.5) for interesting or well-written arguments if they are executed well, and also for kindness / humor if used thoughtfully. You can give me food / drinks / do something nice for me, but won´t be boosting speaks for this because I think it is an abuse of power and your speaks should reflect the quality of your speeches, not how many favors or bribes you give to the judge.

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

LD:

I have a lot of thoughts on LD, some are below, but if you're a novice just debate the way that's easiest for you.

Fw is just a way to filter which offense matters - this means that even if you win the framework debate, you don't automatically win the round, and if you're losing framework, that doesn't mean you don't have a shot at getting the ballot. You can either explain why your framework is better than your opponents, or explain how you can win under both frameworks. If you want a more coherent rant about framework, I recommend checking out Nicole Wang´s paradigm <3. Regardless, fw is not a voter (idc what your varsities say).

I'm noticing a lot of LDers are putting arguments that don't have any offense under their framework (e.g. putting a deontological argument under a consequentialist framework or vice versa) - cases need to be clear in how your contentions have offense under your fw. I am not evaluating arguments that have zero offense under your framework, no matter how good they are. This is one of the few times I WILL auto truth; it is very very frustrating to see this, especially when it is not called out. Even if you aren't a phil debater, having even just a very very basic understanding of philosophy would be beneficial (it really surprises me that most of you have NO idea what the differences are).

More LD debaters should collapse, especially if you´re aff. Seriously, a 4 min 1AR and 3 min 2AR won't let you cover everything.

If you're going to be running a phil fw, it's in your best interest to overexplain it.

If you want to larp in LD, that's fine - just make sure your evidence is recent and actually says what the tag says. CPs must explain how they compete with the aff, disads must have clear links to the aff. Plan affs need all of the stock issues. Also plz note I've actually never done CX debate myself - all of my knowledge comes from butchered lay policy-ish rounds on my local circuit and some research on the internet.

1-2 well developed contentions >>>>> 4 blippy ones.

Don't have debates on justice vs. morality. You don't even need to read a value (but you should read a VC/standard).

Debates over definitions are kinda annoying imo and a wash most of the time. Spend more time on the actual case debate.

I have a zero tolerance policy for clipping, paraphrasing, etc in LD. You really should be cutting your cards right.

Voters are cool and they can be super helpful but delinks, nonuniques, etc. are not going to give you the ballot without presumption. Also, voters are reasons to vote for you, not reasons to not vote for your opponent; I know many of you know this, but still attempt to leverage mostly/only defensive arguments against your opponent. Putting someone else down doesn't mean you're automatically better.

Quoting Jacob Nails, "a 4min speech followed by a 2min greatest hits album where you repeat your favorite arguments a second time is not a good speech structure. You're basically just forfeiting the last 2min of speech time, the main advantage the neg has." Either end your 2NR early if you have absolutely nothing else to say, or try to go for extra weighing or voters.

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

PF:

I started out in PF, but I am not a PF debater. I know the basics, but not the specifics. I try to focus more on debate-general stuff (warrants, weighing, etc) rather than being like "summary should look like this" when I'm judging PF.

The most important thing is that I want you to debate the way that makes you feel most comfortable. Don't run a progressive argument or even a framework if you don't know how to defend it in front of me just because you think it'll be cool to do so or because you think that's what I want to hear. I promise I'm good for substance debate!

idk why so many of you rely so much on subpoints - if you have a contention with one subpoint at the end, it might be better to just remove the subpoint and add it to your main contention in order to make a more nuanced/cohesive argument.

I'm not sure why many of you don't extend your partner's arguments into your speeches. Nothing is ever "sticky" - if it's not extended, you don't get it.
I should be able to draw a line from summary -> FF. I'm not evaluating new arguments in FF that were not in summary (besides new weighing).

PF is kinda elitist - if you're against a team with less prep or experience and you run a niche argument, please try to walk them through your arguments/strategy if your opponents seem confused, and maybe don't run every single prewritten response your coach or captains made if your opponents end up running a stock position.

This might be a hot take, but all of you need to stop using only nonuniques as responses to case. They are literally just defensive arguments and don´t matter without winning presumption.

If everyone wants to skip grand CX, let me know and we can do that.

I won´t autodrop people for paraphrasing, clipping, etc because I did a fair share of paraphrasing myself in PF, but I´m 100% willing to drop a team on evidence ethics - just make the argument in round.

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

Other events

If I somehow get you for any event that's not PF or LD, assume I know nothing about it. It's your responsibility to adapt accordingly.

Cindy Tang Lexington HS None

Ayala Tovy Newton South High School

Advay Verma Lexington HS

Bingquan Wang Boston Latin School

Tao Wang Newton South High School

Alamelu Yadav Sharon None

Login to Tabroom

Lexington Winter Invitational

2025 — Lexington, MA/US

Novice PF Paradigm List

Judges