Lexington Winter Invitational

2019 — Lexington, MA/US

William Caughertry Paradigm

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Jason Dai Paradigm

Not Submitted

Avery Fortier Paradigm

I judge very similarly to Simran Gandhi -- https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=63569

Simran Gandhi Paradigm

I'm a 4th year LD debater at Lexington High School

Daniel Grau Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mike Hu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Avani Kabra Paradigm

I am a senior and have been debating for Lexington High School since freshman year.

I'm honestly fine with any argument- I usually run kritiks and some phil but also sometimes LARP and occasionally theory/T.

In the novice division, I prefer you don't spread if your opponent won't be able to understand you (but if you both want to/understand it, then go for it).

Impact calc is always super encouraged and appriciated. Also, please signpost as much as possible.

If you have any specific questions, please ask me before the round!

Evan Li Paradigm

I'm a senior from Lexington high school and I've been in LD debate for 4 years

Chidinma Nwodo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kri Pelletier Paradigm

New Judge

Megha Prasad Paradigm

Conflicts: Lexington, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is okay. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably a little better at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. Disclosure and email chains are good. Also, I'm a first year out so you probably don't want to pref me but you do you.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by CQ, David Asafu-Adjaye, and Phoebe Kuo. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record.

Kritiks

I mostly ran Ks as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. That being said, don't read them in front of me just because I read them. It does mean that I have a higher threshold for Ks and I want to see a clear link and know what the alt does.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool. CPs need to solve the aff and have a net benefit to be competitive or at least have a net benefit that outweighs the aff. DAs are fine, just be wary of super long link chains.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so if you read these you will need to make the abuse story very clear to me and slow down. I also have a tendency to ignore theory and look for other, more interesting, places to vote on the flow and vote there.

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments. That being said, I'm also hella not tab in the sense that I do not think fairness is a voter.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory/other bullshit

just no.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc. Be strategic and don't be a dick and you'll probably be happy with your speaks.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF cuz I think it's hella white and cutesy. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

Policy:

Haven't judged much of this but I feel like it's probably a better version of LD.

Andrea Reier Paradigm

Not Submitted

Matthew Repecki Paradigm

Hi, I'm Matthew Repecki, I am a senior at Harrison.

What will give you higher speaks

1. Being a clear speaker

2. Signposting your arguments

3. Give clear voting issues

4. Weighing your extensions vs your opponent's extensions

5. Reading topical arguments and K's

What you will lose speaking points for

1. Being rude to your opponent

2. Sitting during your speeches and cx unless you are not physically able to stand

3. Arguing with me after the round, it is ok to ask questions though

4. Reading frivolous Theory or Tricks

5. Being late, I nor your opponent want to be kept waiting around, get to the round early and wait outside if you are flight 2.

Speed

My email is repecki88@gmail.com

I am perfectly fine with speed as long as you are clear

Tricks

Just don't read them in front of me..... at all

Theory

I am fine with Theory and I think RVI's are fine to vote on as a check against abusive theory.

If you have any questions before the round feel free to ask them.

Vedant Roy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chang Shu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nachiyappan Solaiyappan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Radhika Verma Paradigm

I am a parent of an LD debater. The majority of rounds I have judged have been traditional rounds on the local circuit.

Please speak slowly and explain your arguments very well. I will do my best to flow and keep up with the round.

Paul PJ Wexler Paradigm

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech
Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

LD Paradigm is here first, followed by Policy and then PF at the bottom (though much of LD applies to PF where appropriate)- Worlds is at VERY end.

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

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

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. See below for note regarding Arlington HS specifically.

-Education theory OK but if frivolous RVIs encouraged.I will almost always vote on reasonability.

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

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in 1NR or 2AR are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

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

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

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

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds-

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

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

See below for 'role of the ballot'.

To Access higher speaker points...

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

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

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

ALSO...

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

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so)

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude ignoramus.

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

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you embody perceptual subservience.

3)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent way of doing so, and in public at that.

Longer Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

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

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

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


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

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Arlington High by team consensus does not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation.

c) I will vote on education theory. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused please.

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

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

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

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold.

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

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING


1) On sharing cases and evidence,

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

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

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity. But don't expect higher speaker points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

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

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


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



On Non Debater authored Cases

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

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

Therefore

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

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

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

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

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

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

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

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

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

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

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

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

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

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

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

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

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, are uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how i vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting to make changes. I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

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

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


ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

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

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

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

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

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

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

In elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

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

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

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

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

Most importantly

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

POLICY Paradigm-

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

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

1b) This is true for LD, but is worth noting again. I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'). They such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant. If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

I will evaluate K's when based on the topic literature.

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

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

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

4) On Evidence...

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

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

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

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed, it also means higher speaker points are unlikely to be earned.

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

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

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

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

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

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

Worlds 2019

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

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of one year. I judged at the Harvard Worlds tournament one year and competed in Parli in college

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit below) for this tournament I shall reward teams which

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

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

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

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

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

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caroline Wong Paradigm

Look at me during CX: you’re trying to convince me, not your opponent.

I prefer fluency over speed. Speaking fast is fine, but if you’re going fast and stumbling over every other word, you save more time by just speaking a little slower. Plus it's easier to listen to.

No frivolous T or theory shells.

Bonus speaks if you make well-founded original args, WEIGH, or make me laugh (for a good reason).

Kevin Yang Paradigm

Hey! I'm Kevin, I'm a fourth year LD debater for Lexington High School.

I'm fine with pretty much all arguments as long as it isn't obviously racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. Read whatever you're comfortable with.

If your opponent is clearly newer to debate and you're purposefully making the round inaccessible (through spreading, theory, kritiks, aprioris, etc.) you'll get low speaks.

Debate is a game, play it however you want and have fun!!

Nina Yee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xi Yu Paradigm

PF. I strongly believe that the educational value of PF is in its "lay-ness" and access to the "general public." As such, please speak with vocal inflection and "persuasion," like you are making a speech to a human being, and not to a professional debate coach. Additionally, please avoid jargon, when possible. Please write my ballot for me in your last speech(es). I don't like intervening.

Also, I was in the LD pool for many years, so if you choose to have a framework in your constructive case, please know how to use it!

Novice LD. In Prelims, please stick to a V/VC debate, and debate the resolution. A good framework debate prior to contention-level debate is preferred. Give clear voters and impact back to the VC in your last speech. You may ask to see each others' cases during CX/Prep time, and you are free to ask clarification questions to each other during prep time. Speed is okay, but must fill up all of time.

luke eriksson Paradigm

Hi.

I debated LD for Lexington for four years and I'm a freshman at NYU.

I mostly ran theory and Ks during high school but I'm also well versed with LARP debate.

Queerness arguments were my speciality but I'm familiar with anti blackness, high theory, etc.

Phil debate is fine just not where I'm at my best necessarily.

I'm fine with speed and I'll say clear as many times as I need to, just slow down for theory interps and advocacy texts.

Speaker points:

- I like strategic arguments

- I like word efficiency

- I dislike rudeness during CX or in round

- I like concise overviews and impact calc

yianni zavaliagkos Paradigm

Contact: 20zavaliagkos2@lexingtonma.org - for questions and email chains

I'll vote on anything just don't be rude.