Lexington Winter Invitational
2019 — Lexington, MA/US
Lauren Amos Paradigm
Currently a law student. I did PF for three years and have been coaching/judging on and off for Lake Highland for six years. My only request is that you extend arguments, not just author names.
Charlie Birnberg Paradigm
Poojitha Chandrashekar Paradigm
Kurissa Choi Paradigm
George Clemens Paradigm
Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.
Ashok Ghosh Paradigm
I am a parent and lay judge who has been judging for 2 years.
When debating, I look for people who are able to stand by their arguments well. I don't care what the argument is, as long as you are able to back it up and defend it against your opponent's rebuttals.
Monali Kamadolli Paradigm
Shyam Kamadolli Paradigm
I am a lay judge but it may help to know that I invest in young entrepreneurs for a living: so I judge peoples effectiveness at convincing me on a daily basis. I do not bring my existing knowledge or biases to the round - rather I look for effective contentions and how well you defend them.
For speaker points - I start midrange and go up or down from there in small increments. Clear enunciation of contentions and counters are appreciated. Use your words always and politely! Rudeness, speaking over others, aggressive body language are not.
Good prep counts as much as your delivery skills. I look for data-driven arguments and logical arguments. If you are asked for a card, I expect you to find it quickly.
Kai Kang Paradigm
I am a foreign language teacher for Poly Prep and have started judging for them in 2019. I do not have a background in debate, but I try my best to educate myself on the current topics.
I will flow and take notes during your speeches, but it would help if you do not use in-depth topic or debate specific jargon. Please do not spread and be nice to your opponents. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round.
Asiya Karim Paradigm
Kevin Karty Paradigm
Julia Kautz Paradigm
I am a senior at Waring School in Beverly, MA. I have been competing public forum 5 years. In terms of the round, be respectful to your opponents, and your voters, and evidence, with reasoning. Good luck!
John Lee Paradigm
I am a new parent judge so please avoid any jargon I may not understand.
1) Please don't spread - if you are talking fast I won't understand then won't be able to give you appropriate credit
2) Appreciate signposts
3) Make sure to weigh your arguments
4) Don't be rude or condescending and have fun
Craig Lewis Paradigm
Huijuan Li Paradigm
Hello, I am a parent judge.
1. Keep debate words like “nonunique” and “turn” to a minimum.
2. Speak slowly.
3. Be polite but assertive.
4. Make the round very clear for me.
Good luck, have fun.
Jun Liu Paradigm
Brandon Lu Paradigm
I believe that fiat is illusory. Why do we debate the hypothetical implementation of topical government action? What does the better debating mean? Convince me why your method does something good. My favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.
Please bring food.
I debated 4 years of PF for Ridge in high school and I currently do policy for NYU. I will try to adapt as best as possible to debaters but sometimes I might not be able to so please ask questions on anything you're unsure about.
Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.
Please ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful.
I am the master of the bid round
I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.
Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.
Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.
I'm currently split on whether 2nd rebuttal must frontline. I'll default to no unless someone in the round tells me I should and you can debate it out. Any net benefit will make me believe yes -this means you can all have a theory debate and if someone persuades me to always think yes, I'll give 30 speaks. If someone reads new off case arguments in 2nd rebuttal, read theory on it.
Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary.
In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).
How to win my ballot:
Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.
I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).
I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).
I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.
I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.
Things I like:
Debating the line by line well.
Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.
Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.
Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).
Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.
A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.
Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.
Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.
Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice.
Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.
Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).
Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.
Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.
Things I hate:
New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.
Paraphrasing evidence in case- I don't like it but teams seem to do it anyway no matter what I do so I can't really do anything about it, but please don't. It's bad for debate.
Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.
How I award speaks:
30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.
29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.
28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.
27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.
26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.
Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)
30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.
Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.
I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.
Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.
I will adjudicate a TKO if someone decides to go for it. If you believe at any point in the debate that you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (dropped terminal d overview, dropped prereq case arg, theory, k, irreparable strategic error), you can stop the round and ask me to evaluate it. If you are right, you win with 30s; if you are wrong, you lose with 28s. Many rounds I've judged were over in first summary. It's usually very obvious if you are able to call a TKO.
If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 1. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 1.
You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.
If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.
I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something I think is dumb.
Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts
TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.
Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.
I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.
K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.
K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.
Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.
Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.
Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.
I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.
I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.
Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.
I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.
DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).
CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.
Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.
K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.
Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).
T: For some reason, I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.
Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.
Anthony Mabardy Paradigm
Sasha Malley Paradigm
I am a senior at Waring School in Beverly, MA. I have been competing in public forum debate tournaments since the 8th grade. In terms of the round, please treat each other respectfully and be sure to tell me why I should vote for you. Have strong logical connections and support your evidence with reasoning. Good luck!
Lydia Margolien Paradigm
I am a first year out from Acton-Boxborough, where I competed on the national circuit.
I am very familiar with flow debate but I like to judge from a pretty lay perspective. That being said, I definitely can and will keep up with very flow rounds if that's how the cards fall.
Things I like:
-Clear and concise speaking style
-Emphasis on logic rather than just throwing cards around. I love good analysis and usually it's quite obvious if you don't understand the evidence you're using.
-Explaining things in a way that make sense to someone who hasn't done any prep on the topic
What I don't like!!!
-Being rude to your competitors. A serious dealbreaker for me. If it's bad enough (don't ask what constitutes "bad enough"), I'll drop you and give you low speaker points.
-Saying "the [Author Name] card" and never explaining what the card actually says. Don't just throw cards around if you can't properly explain the analysis behind them.
-Speaking too fast
-New arguments in second summary/ final focus
Thats it for me. Remember that debate is an educational and FUN activity!
Robert McCormack Paradigm
Speak slowly and articulately rather than racing through your speech
I like hearing logical arguments based up by evidence
In your final speeches, tell me why you should win
Adi Meruva Paradigm
Kriti Moogala Paradigm
Ramalingam Palaniappan Paradigm
Hi, my name is Ramalingam Palaniappan and I am a new judge. I prefer if fellow debators speak in a more "normal" pace so I can digest all the information, other than speed-reading through their cases, for instance.
David Perna Paradigm
Priya Ramanan Paradigm
I am a lay judge, who has been judging in the New England area for the last three years. I have debated in my high school and college days some 25 years ago, and by no means was that structured the way debates run today. I have picked up some of the PF debating jargon, but am definitely not at expert level yet. So, please do not assume I'm familiar with debating jargon and don't assume that I'm familiar with arguments, just because they've been common on this year's topic.
I'm not logistically challenged, so please feel free to find a comfortable spot that works best for you and makes you feel confident. This is about you not me.
Public Forum (PF) is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals. All I require is that I can understand the argument. Clarity is more important than speed for me, so please DO NOT SPREAD. I value quality over quantity. It is extremely difficult to listen, digest and take notes, when the debater speaks too fast! I often say, if you can't reach me, you have already lost the round!
Provide and agree on definitions, so that everyone including your opponents and the judges are the same page. Provide citations and be sure to explain how the cited information supports or refutes a point. I'm not big on statistics for the sake of statistics. Please remember numbers and arguments can be twisted any which way to support or refute a hypothesis. So, analysis and interpretation needs to be logical, reasonable, and believable. Please don't resort to doomsday soothsaying. It doesn't grab my attention, unless you can prove your impacts with the right evidence and logic!
I place a premium on well-supported "real-world" links, but this doesn't mean you throw a bunch of stats/ or jargon at me, you'll definitely lose me. Instead warrant/ impact your arguments logically to their full conclusion, make sure there is ACTUAL CLASH and possible vote. It is best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. Consistency with historical precedence/ the world we live in is very important for me. I'm open to hypothetical/ theoretical/ creative argumentation, as long as you can support your argument with logical reasoning, specific evidence/ statistics and/or historical antecedents from around the global. Remember, history doesn't belong only to the United States. Research global historical events and use them to your advantage.
In conclusion, my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. Outline the case, restate and/or carry your main points into the summaries and final focus. Do not introduce new arguments after the first summary and do not forget to extend your case. Crystallize your case for me. DO NOT make me do the analysis and conclusions for you! I may get it completely wrong and you may not like the result!
Please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round. During crossX, please be inquisitive, investigative and probing, but not contentious or disrespectful. CAMARADERIE and HUMOR are always a PLUS! Most importantly, have fun debating and learn from each of these amazing experiences. Enjoy!
Amit Roy Paradigm
Mandeep Sawhney Paradigm
Selma Tabakovic Paradigm
Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic and I debated Public Forum in high school for 3 years at Walter Panas High School. I now go to American University as a Legal Studies Major and Politics, Policy and Law Scholar. At AU, I do American Parliamentary Debate while coaching PF for American Heritage. I have worked at summer camps including Capitol Debate and Millennials at Georgetown University.
What I like to see in the round:
Comparative weighing in FF! Tell me why an argument matters more than another, I shouldn't have to be the one to do so.
If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF.
What isn't necessary in the round:
Front-lining in second rebuttal is not needed. Defense is not needed in first summary. You can make whatever call you want, though, but for time efficiency, just know I'm okay with you not mentioning it but it still being considered in the round.
Only give an off-time roadmap if it is truly necessary. For example, roadmaps before 1st rebuttal are not required. If you give me a roadmap, tell me where you will start and be efficient with that explanation but do not start making arguments.
I'm okay with no handshakes.
No need to be wearing anything uncomfortable during the round! EX: Just wear your flats instead of heels I understand the struggle.
Min Verquist Paradigm
Hello! I am a second-year judge for novice-level public forum high school debates. I judge based on these criteria:
1. Displays solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis.
2. Utilizes evidence without being driven by it.
3. Presents a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of opposing team (rebuttal).
4. Communicates ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum.
I do not encourage "spreading," or speed reading. You should lay out a few clear arguments supported by your strongest evidence, and clearly articulate the impact of each argument. Quality, not quantity. Less is more.
I expect debaters to refute the opposing side's arguments during the Rebuttal phase. Do not use the Rebuttal phase to cram in more arguments, and then use the Crossfire phases for rebuttals.
Jim Verquist Paradigm
Hello! I am a second-year judge for public forum high school debates. I look forward to hearing you debate!
For each person, I score your two speeches and crossfire on scale of 25-30. Then I average these 3 scores and deduct any decorum penalties. Here’s what I’m looking for:
a. Construction: Present your case = succinct organization, sound reasoning, credible evidence, and clear delivery.
b. Rebuttal: Refute opposing side's arguments. Do not use Rebuttal to cram in more arguments.
c. Summary: Crystallize your case, in light of everything that has happened.
d. Final Focus: Frame with clarity why your team won the debate.
e. Crossfire: Dig into other side’s arguments during CX rounds to find weaknesses.
f. Decorum: I expect professional decorum at all times. I penalize anything less.
My hope is this approach will give you more insight into the areas where you are strong, and where you can improve.
Do not "spread," or speed read (more than ~150 words per minutes). You should lay out a few clear arguments supported by your strongest evidence, and clearly articulate the impact of each argument. Quality, not quantity. Less is more. You will not earn points if I can't understand you, or process what you say.
Be reasonable about requesting evidence. Request evidence you don’t believe or you feel is misrepresented. But don’t request evidence you already know to be true. And make sure your evidence is well organized and available offline to maximize efficiency in case a team calls for your evidence.
In scoring each speech and crossfire, I ask myself 3 questions:
1. Did you focus on the task at hand?
2. Did I understand the argument?
3. Was the argument persuasive?
Speaker #1 points = [Construction + Summary + Crossfire] / 3 - Decorum Penalties = [a + c + e] / 3 - f
Speaker #2 points = [Rebuttal + Final Focus + Crossfire ] / 3 - Decorum Penalties = [b + d + e] / 3 - f
The final score for each person will be 24-30 points:  bad decorum. [25-26] below average. [27-28] average. [29-30] above average.
The team with the most points wins the debate. In the case of a tie, I decide based on which side I found more persuasive.
Ramana Viswanathan Paradigm
Khalida Waheed Paradigm
Charles Wang Paradigm
I'm a freshman in college, who debated three years of PF for Lexington. I also did one year of policy, but also I was a young high school freshman at the time so please just stick to the PF stuff. Refer to my friend Anika's paradigm because I'm lazy and a leech :) If you still have questions, ask!
Be cool, and stay in school
- Show me your favorite tik tok; +0.1 speaks, +0.2 if it’s good
- Bring me food; +0.2 speaks
- Reference our lord and savior Robert Chen in-round; +0.2 speaks
- Find Benjamin Liu, a Lexington debater, and T-pose in front of him for 10 seconds. He will most likely T-pose back, as that is strictly in his nature. Take a video, and show me before round; +0.5 speaks
- Read the bee movie script instead of your case; instant 30 (jk please don't do this)
Alissa Wang Paradigm
Lexington High School '19
I debated for Lexington High School in LD for 3 years and in PF for 1.
I prefer a bit more traditional LD debate with logical arguments and clear delivery, presentation, and defense within your framework and contentions. I do not enjoy blippy theory and tricks and have not flowed progressive debates or spreading for a couple of years. So, if you decide to read off cases, please explain your arguments clearly.
I am somewhat familiar with and have run CPs, Ks, and DAs during my career so if you decide to read them, make sure you explain and have good evidence to support your arguments.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! :)
Reed Warburton Paradigm
I used to dabble in Varsity Public Forum, I am by no means a normal man.
Pierce Warburton Paradigm
Jessica Xiao Paradigm
Julia Xu Paradigm
Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.
1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.
2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.
3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.
Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!
*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.
Min Zhang Paradigm
I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge