Lexington Winter Invitational
2019 — Lexington, MA/US
Lauren Amos Paradigm
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 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. I've found that I am enjoying Ks a lot recently, so I would be very happy to see one read in front of me (30 speaks in PF).
Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (email@example.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.
Girls RR: I think this is a really great opportunity to explore K debate, especially with this topic. I have limited knowledge about the topic, so I might need more hand-holding than usual.
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 do not believe that the 2nd rebuttal should have to respond to the first rebuttal, but the 2nd summary should extend defense to the 1st summary. I think that a split in second rebuttal is strategic, especially if there's off case offense in the first rebuttal. I consider new off case offense in 2nd rebuttal abusive and it is a voting issue if brought up by the other team.
I will extend dropped defense for you from any speech to the end, unless it is responded too. This means that any extensions through ink are illegitimate as long as the response is responsive. That being said, any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll consider arguments a wash if there's dropped defense because it's impossible for me to weigh between the offense and defense. Turns must be extended like offense or I will consider them dropped, but you can extend them as terminal defense from rebuttal to final focus.
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' impact and WEIGH IT. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption.
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. 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:
Weighing- PLEASE WEIGH!!! It's here for the second time for a reason. Especially if you and your opponents have different impacts.
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). 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. Over trolling 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. However, I will not intervene randomly on evidence unless given a reason to.
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)
Extra 1 speak if you cater the round. That's food for me and your opponents.
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.
I default to reasonability for theory debates (if you run theory on novices and they mention reasonability, it is terminal defense). This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations because T is about competing models of debate. 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.
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 but 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.
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.
I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.
I'm most familiar with LARP: Check out my policy paradigm for that.
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 don't like voting off one line in a speech but I'll still do it.
Performance: Not the most familiar so you'll need to do some handholding. 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 mostly read policy affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg.
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.
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.
CPs: I believe that CPs should test how plan texts are written so I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory but I don't automatically vote down any abusive CPs. CPs must have competition in some way, usually through a net benefit.
Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- actually explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. That being said, I'm a very K friendly judge. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it.
Fw: 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 for me, the impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important.
T: I default to competing interpretations and drop the team. Can be changed.
Theory: I default to reasonability and drop the argument. Can be changed. If you win an RVI I'll vote on 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'm a captain for the ABRHS debate team and this is my third year competing on the national circuit.
I believe that PF should be a debate for the "public forum", meaning anyone, regardless of debate background, should be able to judge and comprehend the round and make a decision. Please keep that in mind as you debate for me and read the rest of my paradigm.
Logistics: Keep track of your own prep time and time yourselves. Please do NOT have timers that count down and have an alarm at the end of the speech. Please have pre-flows done before you enter the round, and don't dilly-dally in between speeches or during evidence exchanges. Efficiency is key, especially at this tournament.
Speed: I can do speed, but going too fast will lower your speaking points quickly if it ruins comprehensibility. No spreading please.
Theories/k's: I don't know how to debate them, I don't know how to judge them, I don't think they belong in public forum.
Evidence: I don't call for evidence unless I'm told to do so in a speech and the evidence goes contested for the majority of the round. If your opponent's evidence is terrible, it's your responsibility to tell me that, otherwise I will keep it in the round.
Weighing: pls weigh
Crossfire: If you got your opponent to concede something or you make a good decision in cross, I won't evaluate it unless it's in an actual speech. I listen to crossfire for speaker point purposes, but i don't evaluate it on the flow. Also, please please please be nice to your opponents.
Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal: I vibe. I won't require that you frontline in 2nd rebuttal but it makes everyone's lives so much easier if you do.
Defense in 1st summary: Only turns, OR if your opponents frontline in second rebuttal. If your opponents don't respond to your responses, you don't have to repeat it.
2nd final focus: I will not evaluate new analysis or evidence in 2nd FF that was not in summary.
Speaker points: If you say anything offensive, racist, abelist, sexist, etc. you WILL get a 20. Speaker points will also be deducted from being rude to your opponents (or partner) so please be nice.
Have fun debating and let me know if you have any questions!
Robert McCormack Paradigm
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
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 the 3 numbers 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 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 am a third year PF debater/senior at Lexington. If you are reading this, most likely I am judging you in novice PF. I have a pretty traditional view on PF, and even though I did a year of policy my freshman year, don't try me on anything that isn't strictly inside the topic. Kritiks, theory, nuh uh.
On speed, I am okay with some speed, as long as you are clear. Especially as a novice, do not spread, even if you are god-tier at it.
On speaker points, as long as you're not rude in round, I gotchu; I will give you good speaks.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9_vZ9g7m0I Blast this before round; +0.1 speaks
- If you are in the subtle asian traits fb group, show me a post, and if I deem it funny, +0.1 speaks (btw I'm Chinese so no Korean memes pls)
- 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
Back to the serious stuff:
On the flow, I stick strictly to the flow when I am evaluating rounds, so please make sure to extend your arguments in each speech. If something is not in the final speech, I will not consider it in my decision.
Also please weigh :) Why should I prefer your arguments over the opponents? If you weigh effectively, it makes the job easier for me.
In the end, remember that debate is a game. I'm taking this straight off of my partner, Aadharsh's paradigm, but I thought he said it pretty well, so I will say it too. Novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third. Keep the round relaxed, and try to learn something while you're at it!
Alissa Wang Paradigm
Reed Warburton Paradigm
Varsity Public Forum Debater
Pierce Warburton Paradigm
Jessica Xiao Paradigm
Julia Xu Paradigm
Min Zhang Paradigm
I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge