Tabroom.com

The 16th Scarsdale Invitational

2019 — Scarsdale, NY/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Shreya Barlinge Scarsdale HS

James Black Byram Hills HS

Curtis Chang Scarsdale HS

Vedansh Chauhan Princeton

Jeong-Wan Choi Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat November 20, 2021 at 5:34 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Jeong-Wan, I debated in LD for Lexington High School. I qualified to the TOC in my senior year if that matters to you

email: jeongwanc@gmail.com

Quick prefs

1-2: Theory, T, phil

3-4: Identity/conventional Ks, policy

5-6: esoteric high theory, tricks

Overview

I'm comfortable with any argument you make, so long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously do not read/do anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc. If you do/say anything exclusionary, its gonna be the lowest speaks possible and an auto-L. I will immediately stop the round. However, if it is an argument such as a spike, where it is up for debate whether it is exclusionary, the debate will continue.

Debate is tech>truth. I will evaluate all arguments that are on the flow. That being said, less true arguments and those of low quality have a lower threshold for a response. But if you don't respond to no neg analytics, I can't intervene on your behalf.

Helpful quote from Derek Ying:

"This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner."

If you are hitting someone who is a newcomer to the activity, give them an opportunity to engage. If your opponent has certain accommodations that should be met, I expect you to meet those things. If you make the debate completely inaccessible, don't expect your speaks to be nice no matter how well you debated in round. If you do accommodate well then your speaks will be good.

Defaults

Don't make me set these. Worst case scenario, here are mine: Competing interps, drop the argument, fairness and education are voters, no rvis, theory/T > K/reps > post fiat.

If there is really no weighing and there are two competing arguments at the highest layer, I will flip a coin.

Preferences

I enjoy judging arguments that aren't as conventional. Try to be creative with original arguments and interesting implications.

Don't blitz as fast as you can. I'm not the best flower. Efficiency > speed anyways

Making funny remarks or good jokes in round will increase your speaks.

Good ethos will also increase your speaks. Utilize CX well. It also has a chance for me to psychologically side with you if the debate is close on one issue.

Speaks

I'll try to average 28.5.

I encourage/incentivize strategy, efficiency, persuasion, and rebuttals that don't rely on blocks the whole speech.

I don't disclose speaks

For Novices:

Please do WEIGHING. If there are competing truth claims, it is your responsibility to resolve them by saying why your arguments have more credence. This is how 70% of novice debates are won.

Make sure to Collapse. Don't go for every argument on the flow. Extend your best offense and weigh why that matters more than your opponent's offense. Concentrating on fewer arguments but explaining them more in-depth will be advantageous.

Do not do/read anything exclusionary - i.e: if your opponent is uncomfortable with spreading and you spread. Also please do not read anything that you don't understand; it will hurt your ethos.

Wolf Cukier Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 3, 2023 at 11:56 AM EDT

(Last updated November 2023)

Princeton Update: I have not judged LD since Princeton last year — please go at about 80% speed — I will SLOW and CLEAR with no penalty though.

Hello, I'm Wolf (he/him). I debated LD for Scarsdale High School 2016-2020 and am in the Princeton Class of 2024 and (sometimes) compete in Parli debate. Email: wolfcukier@gmail.com.

Generally I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible but we all know what that means changes on what our biases are so here is my paradigm.

VLD:

Overall I will try not to be biased against any arguments that aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semetic, etc. That being said, I debated in a relatively narrow way and will probably be better at judging what I debated.

Quick Prefs:

Tricks: 1

Theory: 1/2

Phil: 1/2

LARP: 2

Ks: 3

Trad: 4/5

General Stuff:

The only rules of debate are sides, speech-times, and the existence of the topic (this does not mean you must follow it, just that there is a difference between reading something for the current topic vs. anything else).

I will flow off the doc, assuming you sent it to your opponent. Flowing was one of my weak points as a debater and I don't think that my lack of skill should negatively impact you when I am judging.

I will say SLOW or CLEAR as many times as needed without docking speaks. If you need to SLOW or CLEAR your opponent, do so, but be aware I will be annoyed if you are faster or more unclear that your opponent when you called them on it.

I have a very low threshold for extensions: If no ink was put on your NC, saying "extend the NC" or "they dropped the NC" is sufficient for me to consider it in my decision. That being said, you should still probably flesh out your extension more so I know how to use it in my decision but if it is obvious, I generally wont penalize you.

Defaults:

These are only defaults--not biases (I think some of these are false but are the most equitable to assume)-- to be used if no one even vaguely mentions one of them. If someone initiates a debate on one of these arguments I will evaluate the debate from a blank slate. One theme you might notice in these is when you initiate something like theory, you must be sure to justify the paradigmatic issues for the round.

Truth Testing (this might actually be a bias)

Permissibility Negates

Competing Interps

Yes RVIs

Edu and Fairness not voters

Drop the Arg on Theory, Drop the Debater on T

TT does not take out theory.

If an argument explicitly indicts another, it comes 1st (assuming the indict only goes one way).

Text > Spirit

I will not default to presumption except explicitly triggered.

Tricks:

I read these pretty much every round I could get away with them. As long as something has a semblance of a warrant I will probably vote off of it if it was won. That being said, please be honest about them in CX. If someone asks where your a prioris are and you say "whats an a priori" I will be slightly annoyed (unless obviously played as a joke). Also, most tricks do not survive any encounter with a response — the attempt to win that the US really is a landmass when your opponent caught it will most likely fail.

Theory/T:

Go for it. The only brightline for what counts as frivolous theory is what you can justify in round. If you can win it, I'll vote on it. See above for my defaults. Be sure to implicate the theory shell in the round-- you still need to justify drop the debater or why fairness is a voter. Be sure to weigh between standards.

Phil:

Looking back, this is the area of debate where I wish I invested more time in. I generally should have a sense of what everything is but the less well known in debate a philosopher is, the more you should explain it. Feel free to run high theory but the only real high theorist that I read was Deleuze.

LARP:

Be sure to justify Util or whatever framework you are using if you are running LARP, but besides that I should be good for this. I generally don't give as much weight to cards as other judges for things like analysis so just be aware of that. I generally read LARP in rounds where I could not get away with a more abusive strategy but always shied away from LARP v LARP debates. If you get into one of those card-fests-- weigh!!!

Ks:

Feel free to read these but be aware that I never really read them when I was a debater. My knowledge of most K lit is sorely lacking so you probably need to explain stuff to me more. I also probably care more about the line by line in this debate than the average K judge. I do think K debate is valuable and will do my best to judge it well but I probably lack the skills and background to do as well of a job at this as you would like me to if you run Ks. (That was a mouthful of a sentence).

K update: Note that as I’ve been judging I’m finding I appreciate Ks a lot more than when I was a debater. The above still applies but if you are a K debater, read a K in front of me.

Speaks:

Speaks will be awarded for strategic debate, executing a strategy that I am not good at judging cleanly (like clearly winning a K in front of me), and generally doing a good job.

Speaks will be lowered for poor strategic decisions, failing to collapse where prudent, problematic statements or args that don't rise to the level of dropping you, not weighing, and making the round impossible for me to judge (not just b/c it was messy-- messy rounds happen, but no one reading a standard for instance or having two competing standards with no clash)

I will try to average a 28.7 and to give a 29+ to everyone I think performed well enough to break. (update: its higher)

NLD:

In these debates I expect that no one talks above a fast conversational pace.

Morality = Justice (Please don't debate between these two)

PLEASE WEIGH!!!!!!!!! Oftentimes the round comes down to whoever weighs more.

I evaluate the round by first picking the framework which is best won and then voting for the debater with the most offense under that framework.

I will listen but not flow CX

In Novice LD I expect nothing to be more tech than contentions. If you know what DAs or CPs are you can run them as contentions.

I have a low threshold for extensions- If your util FW is conceded and there is no opposing FW "extend the util FW" is sufficient

NPF

I am a LD debater so there are some things I am not used to in this activity

I evaluate the debate under an offense/defense paradigm. This means that winning that your opponents offense is not true is sufficient.

Please weigh between your offense and your opponents offense.

Jason Dai Lexington HS None

Lori Dyer Byram Hills HS None

Mark Fakler Byram Hills HS

Britani Fraser Stuyvesant HS

William Freedman The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Fri October 13, 2023 at 11:53 AM EDT

TL;DR: I'll evaluate any argument you make as long as it isn't actively discriminatory (racism good, etc.) but also I'm bad at evaluating some stuff I talk about later.

Read this if you're a novice: The rest of this paradigm doesn't really matter for you. I will evaluate the round based on the winning framework, I don't care about the truth of an argument if it's won, feel free to ask me any questions, I'm here to help!

The Most Important Thing: I have barely thought about debate since I graduated. This means please do not go circuit speed. Also, if your strat/style requires me to correctly evaluate a million arguments and understand the tiny nuances in the way they interact, I may miss something that tangibly impacts the round. Don't let this discourage you from reading what you think is strategic, just recognize that I have been out of the scene for a minute.

Hi, I'm William, a current Junior at Columbia University. I debated LD for 4 years, mostly national circuit tournaments. wrf2107@columbia.edu for chains

LD paradigm:

Very Important: Send anything prewritten you have in a doc when you read it. Prewritten overviews, blocks, etc. This is important for accessibility.

I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter.

I don't really care what you read as long as you can explain it to me. I'm more comfortable evaluating phil and tricks stuff, then larp, then dense ks/performance. I'll evaluate whatever you read, I'm probably just better at some things. This is especially important for performance, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability, but I've never understood fully how to implicate it in round. Read what you think will win you the round, but know that I go in with prior knowledge.

some defaults (only if there's no argument about them, once a debater makes a claim about any of these, the default doesn't matter):

no rvis, no judge kick, yes 1ar theory, competing interps, drop the debater, epistemic confidence, presume neg, T=theory>K>substance, comp worlds, theory as norm setting.

If I forgot anything, ask me and I'll tell you what I default to.

Random notes that might be useful, roughly ordered by importance

1. When people say the ROB is to vote for the better debater: If you read this, I will have no clue how to evaluate the round. The point of a ROB is to tell me what it means to be a better debater, please don't just say "whoever's better."

2. Non T affs: I'm happy to vote on a non t aff if you win it on the flow, but I tend to lean more to the side of T in these debates, so you're fighting an uphill battle. (not that you can't or shouldn't read them, just know that I have tended to fall on the side of TFW in the past).

3. I have a relatively high bar for 2ar/2nr explanations for phil/k theories, don't blip past a million buzzwords, tell me why your view of the world/ethics/power/etc. is true, then why I care in the context of the round

4. Theory: Theory is only frivolous if you can prove it is. I may think shoes theory is a bad argument, but if its won its won (but I will be sad if you read shoes theory in front of me and you'll get a 26). I am also so incredibly happy to vote on reasonability in these kinds of rounds, but for some reason nobody reads that.

5. I don't flow CX but I listen to it. This means I will hold you to your CX explanations or lack thereof, but things said in CX aren't arguments.

6. Topic lit: I have read exactly 0 topic lit, don't expect me to know what you're talking about if you don't tell me

7. I won't vote on "evaluate [x thing] after [current speech]". If you read evaluate theory after the 1ar in the 1ar, i won't vote on it, if you read it in the ac then read 1ar theory, I'll vote on it and be sad. That being said, I have a super low threshold for answering these arguments because they're explicitly designed to not have debate and punish someone for missing one blip.

8. Some disclosure bad args are probably underutilized and have the potential to win the disclosure debate. Interpret this how you want to lol. (Note for after rereading this: This doesn't mean don't read disclosure. If you think its strategic, go for it. I will happily vote on it if you win.)

9. Please consider the implications of your skepticism claims. If all truth claims are undecidable, your presumption and permissibility claims are too. I obviously won't make this implication in round for you, but I am sad when this isn't brought up.

Positions I loved as a debater: Ilaw, Agamben NIB, theory is incoherent, plan flaw.

PF paradigm:

I'm an LD debater, so if there are any PF specific rules/norms I probably won't know them (I know basic stuff like no new args in FF and stuff like that). I care a lot more abt the warranting you give than the specifics of the evidence/ethos-y stuff. If you can't explain your card's warrant I don't really care that it's by some famous economist. I evaluate off the flow, tell me which arguments I should vote on and why they're the most important. Also I know PF is starting to have some K/theory stuff, if both debaters are down I'd be happy to judge that round, but if one side doesn't want to, just read normal PF stuff.

Riya Ganpati Edgemont HS

Elijah Glenn Newark Science

Vivian Guo Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Sun November 14, 2021 at 4:05 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Vivian. I'm a freshman at Duke University studying Computer Science. I debated a lot on the national circuit junior year and quit my senior year. I'm a tech judge and will do my best to evaluate any flow. For Scarvite, try to go at 70% speed and explain a lot because I'm sick and I've been out of the activity for a year and a half.

Contact information: vivianguo07@gmail.com. If you have questions, it's probably better to text me at 914-325-2500. My paradigm is mostly just stuff by Claire Liu:

Honestly, debate is a game. It can be intellectually stimulating, liberating, or a total meme depending on how you play it, but at the end of the day, a win or a loss doesn't actually mean anything. Don't over-invest into the ballot - it doesn't mean anything about you as a person or a debater - it just determines who won a particular round, so relax and try to enjoy yourself. Given this, I also expect that debaters are respectful to each other and everyone in the round. Additionally, feel free to tell me if I'm doing something/acting in a way that makes you feel unwelcome, either during the RFD or during a round.

**** NOVICE **** If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik, and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best.

Other things:

0] I don't care what you wear. If you wear a onesie I'll up your speaks by 0.2

0] If you have a funny ringtone for your timer I will up your speaks by 0.2

1] don't call me judge.

2] bring me food or snacks and i'll improve your speaks.

3] i have a pretty high threshold for an "extension." You can't just say the name of a card I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument.

4] Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading.

5] Weigh as early as possible - i.e. disad outweighs case in 1nc, t standards weighing in 1ar.

6] If there are two contradicting arguments, but neither debater does any interaction/weighing, I will consider it a wash and just not bother evaluating it. I'm lazy like that.

7] If neither debater extends framework I'm defaulting to the aff framework.

8] I'll try to average a 28 for novice and 28.5 for varsity.

Here are some defaults that I hope I don't have to use because you will articulate the argument for me :D

Theory is drop the argument, competing interps, no RVIs.

Topicality is drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs.

1AR theory > topicality = theory = kritik > substance/LARP

Felicity Huang Scarsdale HS

Anthony Kang Harrison

Shweta Kondapi Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 10:03 AM EDT

hii i'm shweta

policy/pf/ld Love Parrot

- quick notes: i debated policy for 4 yrs @lexington high school, have next to no pf/ld/policy topic knowledge (for these topics), am comfortable with speed, and am probably going to be fine with whatever you do (generally tabula rasa).

specifics

policy

- i generally lean tech>truth

- From Andrea's paradigm: Just please clearly delineate a ballot for me in the 2A/2N. Don't just extend arguments, explain why they're important to the round and weigh.

- I love framework debates and probably lean neg (55-45). However, I have also voted on/read kaffs so please don't let this scare you off of reading them. i'd much prefer familiarity w/ your kaff (esp if it has a creative/strategic topic connection! big fan of those affs) than reading a rando policy one. Fairness is an impact.

- tabula rasa for everything else

- i'm generally fine for arguments that overlap with policy (k's/larp)^all of that holds true

- phil: not familiar with them in the context of debate but i'm a phil major so i'm generally familiar with the arguments! feel free as long as you're linking args and weighing back to your framework, to quote andrea

- not super familiar with theory but can judge it

- tricks: please do not/if you do please please explain them. theoretically wouldn't mind judging them but i don't really have experience with/really understand them.

- anything is fine, genuinely tabula rasa

- clash!

- add me to the email chain- kondapidebate@gmail.com

- stole this from andrea's paradigm but *IMPORTANT* - I expect debaters to give trigger warnings before reading material with graphic and/or sensitive content (sexual assault, graphic descriptions/images of racial violence, etc.). If you defend not giving a trigger warning, I won't hesitate to auto drop you and give zero speaks. also pls don't use racist/sexist/ableist language because i will tank your speaks/will not hesitate to vote on discourse. Also, please be polite to your opponents- do not be rude in the name of being assertive.

Nate Kruger Hunter College

Last changed on Fri May 7, 2021 at 3:36 PM EDT

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I'm currently a 2n at wake forest where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda.

please read some interesting k stuff i am so bored

Short Version:

Read whatever you want as long as it's not oppressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXLu_x0SRm4

i know i've got a tricks rep in ld but keep in mind i'm literally a policy k debater now lmao i promise you anything and everything is good in front of me. keep in mind i'm a bored college student, if you read or go for a really cool strat, read some dope k lit, or just have a really interesting and in depth round your speaks will absolutely benefit.

If you're rushing through prefs, use this as a guide:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory/Tricks - 2 (probably could be a 1 i'm 100% down and happy to vote on this i'm just a fyo so u may not want me for a super dense trix round)

LARP - 3

Super dense or difficult to understand K - 2/3

Long Version:

I primarily read different stuff each year. Sophomore year I was all about soft-left affs and larp. Junior year I read a ton of tricks and phil stuff. Senior year I mostly read Deleuze and Psychoanalysis. At Wake so far it's cap and Afrofuturism.

Err on the side of over-explaining super dense k lit. I'll vote on it but if you read something like Baudrillard and assume I know everything you're talking about your speaks will suffer.

Other stuff:

- Don't read afropess if you aren't black. If your opponent reads afropess and isn't black, make that argument, and you'll win. To clarify, this is within the round. If you want to argue that your opponent read it previously and should be dropped, I'm 100% happy and willing to vote on that, but I'll evaluate it as I would any other argument.

- If you want to make an evidence ethics or clipping allegation, tell me to stop the round and I'll evaluate the allegation. W30 to whoever wins and L25 to whoever loses.

- Email me or message me on FB w/ any questions!

Things I'll boost speaks for:

- Clever analytic PICs

- Well executed one off skep against phil or larp

- Well executed one off kritik against k affs

- Understanding your positions and explaining them well (please don't read stuff you don't understand)

- Making fun of any of the following people in a funny and not-too-offensive manner: Scott Klein, Matt Liu, Elizabeth Lee, Zach Lu, Curtis Chang, Jalyn Wu, Amanda Huang, Chris Xu, Annie Wang, anyone on Hunter LD

- Setting up the email chain before I get there, or you walk in if you're flight two

Rohit Lakshman Princeton

Last changed on Fri July 9, 2021 at 9:43 AM EDT

some info abt me: was v flex as a debater so im down to see whatever (please just read whatever ur best at rather than trying to adapt to me, I just love a good debate), qual'd to toc and worked as instructor at nsd

email: ridingsailboat@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

Feel free to hmu before the round asking questions, but I'll evaluate any argument. I'm probably the worst at very heavy policy debates but can still handle them with good judge instruction.

General things:

- I like and encourage post-rounding, it only gets excessive when it becomes clearly personal or accusatory rather than educational

- CX is binding

- I don't really like using cx to prep, at least ask questions while prepping

- I'm not receptive to args asking for high speaks

- I want good extensions. this means claim warrant impact implication.

Thoughts on specific forms of debate:

Kritiks:

love em, well read on most ks people read and especially love strategic implications of things like ontology. good for reps ks too.

Theory:

good for whatever shell u want to run no matter how frivolous, I think im very good at evaluating theory debates bc of how structured they are

Phil:

big fan of kant and just normative phil in general, do good hijacks and syllogistic takeouts and ill be v happy. phil tricks are best tricks, going for skep or a contingent standard or some hijack or something is fun and strategic

Tricks:

good for k tricks and phil tricks, theory tricks are a lot less fun and will prob hurt ur speaks (things like eval after 1ac). Cool paradoxes, trivialism, and skep >>>>> definition nibs / a prioris, extremely long underviews etc. but ill eval whatever

Policy:

Lot of respect and understanding for policy debate but I struggle in very very high level rounds, if you are a policy debater and get me then please go for it but try to avoid embedded clash and make clash very explicit and line-by-line heavy. Call out badly warranted cards. I like impact turn debates a lot and think cheaty counterplans are funny. I also think util is probably the most strategic framework in debate.

Karen Lee Scarsdale HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 6, 2021 at 4:25 AM EDT

Hi I'm Karen from Scarsdale High School! I've done LD for 3 years on the nat circuit.

email me if you have any questions: somin.lee@gmail.com

you can also reach me on facebook (Karen Lee).

I'll try my best to judge like my teammate, Aanya Schoetz. The rest of this paradigm will be the stuff on hers I agree with:

-------

Hi, I'm Aanya. I've done LD for three years at Scarsdale High School. I debate on the national circuit

Please bring flow paper to the round! (thanks a bunch)

Contact information: aanya1111@icloud.com (but tbh if you want to reach me FB messenger is the way to go)

I will do my best to judge like my teammate, Vivian Guo. The rest of the stuff on this paradigm will be the stuff on her paradigm that I agree with:

-------

Hi, I'm Vivian. I've done LD for two and a half years at Scarsdale High School. I have experience on the local and national circuit, but the nat.circ. is my main domain.

Contact information: vivianguo07@gmail.com.You can also FB messenger me at Vivian Guo. Feel free to ask me any questions.

I'll do my best to judge like my teammate, Zachary Siegel. The rest of the stuff on this paradigm will be the stuff on his paradigm that I agree with:

--------

Hi, I'm Zach-- I've done LD for three years at Scarsdale High School. I primarily debate on the national circuit.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I'll try to judge like Claire Liu (the following is from her paradigm that I agree with):

--------

Hi, I'm Claire-- I did LD for four years at Stuyvesant High School and graduated in 2019. I primarily debated on the national circuit, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I taught at NSD Flagship & Philadelphia this past summer.

Email: claireliu333@gmail.com

General:

I'll try to judge like Matt Chen (the following is from his paradigm that I agree with).

Here's just a list of basic expectations I have -

1] Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning, etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

2] I'm not going to follow the speech doc, so signpost and be clear. I'll look after the round to verify evidence claims though, but generally debating evidence well is more important than shitting cards out.

3] Weigh as early as possible - i.e. disad outweighs case in 1nc, t standards weighing in 1ar. The later you weigh, the lower my credence in your claims is

4] Collapse to 1-2 things in your last speech, please. Split rebuttals are rarely a good sign for speaks.

5] I have found that many analytics get too short to qualify as arguments - especially on theory. At the point where your drop the debater arguments are literally "1) deterrence 2) rectify time lost on theory 3) sets good norms" and then nothing else, you haven't made an argument.

6] I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.

7] don't be offensive.

Important Notes:

1] I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech] if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument are legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.

2] For more traditional debaters: do your thing. I am receptive to arguments about why progressive debate is bad and why traditional debate is better and will vote for them if you win them.

3] If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you. I think that indicates familiarity and flexibility with your style of debate, which is an important skill debaters should have, and that will be reflected in speaks.

4] If a round has two arguments that indict each other and one debater wins one argument and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!

Speaks:

1] Speaks are arbitrary, but ill try to be objective. Generally, though, good arg gen and good strategic collapses are what I reward most. I've become increasingly exasperated by prewritten rebuttal speeches. If your entire 1ar/2nr/2ar is prewritten, your speaks will probably be capped around a 29. I probably average around a 28.4

2] The best way to get good speaks is to make me laugh, and I laugh at probably everything.

3] If you are flight 2, please please please set up the email chain before the round and I will boost both of your speaks by +.1

Nikki Lerner Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Sat November 17, 2018 at 10:41 AM EDT

Hey y’all, my name’s Nikki! I’m a junior at Scarsdale High School and I’ve been on the Lincoln Douglas for 3 years! I’m mostly judging novices this year, but if I do end up judging JV/Academy, I’ll include my preferences for that here as well.

General Prefs:

· Sit or stand, whatever’s most comfortable for you

· Please time yourselves, it’s your responsibility

· If you don’t weigh between arguments or extend them, I will not be able to evaluate the round

· If you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give you 0 speaks

· If you're funny, if you give me food or coffee, or if you make a rupaul's drag race reference that is relevant, your speaks will go up .5

·I don't flow cx unless there is a concession brought up in an actual speech, but I still would like you to ask interesting and critical questions

·I allow flex prep

Novices:

· Make sure to speak LOUDLY and CLEARLY, you’ll be rewarded with higher speaks and my better understanding of your arguments so I can better evaluate

· Make sure to weight your arguments!!! This is key for clash in the round so I can actually evaluate the round to my highest ability; you will also receive higher speaks

· If you have an interesting CX, your speaks will go up

JV:

General

o I can understand spreading but flash me your case or email at: nlerner20@scarsdaleschools.org

o I will say CLEAR or SLOW if needed

o Please don’t be mean and run theory or a high theory K on an unexperienced debater; I will evaluate because I have to, but will dock speaks

Theory

o I’m not the biggest fan of theory, but will evaluate it if it’s actually warranted, I HATE frivolous theory

o Weigh! Between! Standards!

o I default to competing interps and no RVIs unless proven otherwise

o I am also a strong believer that K>Theory so unless proven otherwise, that is my default

Kritiks

o I am mainly a kritik debater so I am familiar with most K lit

o Make sure you actually understand the lit you’re reading because if you don’t actually know what it means (and therefore cannot extend or respond to turns), it won’t look good for you

o Even though my default in K>Theory, I’d still like for you to elaborate on why Education>fairness and why it also precludes framework

CP’s/DA’s

o Great, cool, make sure you weigh and impact or else I won’t evaluate

o If no FW is read, I won’t be very pleased; I’ll assume util, but may dock speaks

Framework/Phil

o I love a good framework debate, please do a good job weighing and impacting

o I’m familiar with a bunch of high theory and most debate philosophers, but pretend I don’t and over explain it

Evan Li Lexington HS

Gallo Patel Stuyvesant HS

Last changed on Sat September 30, 2023 at 8:59 AM EDT

I debated for Stuyvesant in LD for four years. I've been out of the activity for two years, so try to keep the spreading to about 75%. You may also want to spend a bit more time on overviews than you normally do.

Add me to the email chain: gcpatel718@gmail.com

Prefs:

Policy/Larp - 1

Kritik - 1

High Theory - 2 (1 for Bifo or Baudy)

Framework/Phil - 3

T/Theory - 3

Tricks - 5

All this said, you can read anything in front of me as long as it's not violent/discriminatory and I will evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

With speaks, I'll try to average a 28.5. You'll do better than that If you weigh your offense and give clear overviews. Try to write the rfd for me in your 2nr/ars.

Tech > truth, but not to a fault. I am a college student with a reasonably good understanding of philosophical and political issues, so of course I have my biases. It's going to be harder to convince me of something I don't think is applicable in real life. If you read something sketchy and your opponent drops it, I will grant it to you, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that is exceedingly dumb. Use your best judgement and try to keep everything grounded in empirical and historical context.

Theory Defaults: Drop the debater, no RVIs, Competing Interps (but I will be happy if you go for reasonability). I am generally not a fan of disclosure theory, but there are definitely situations in which I would vote on it. Also, don't read frivolous theory.

ROB: I default to comparative worlds, but don't let that stop you from reading another ROB. This is usually the most interesting meta-debate within a round.

Ks: I was a K debater in high school, so I love these rounds. That said, I'd rather judge a bad policy debate than a bad K debate. If you don't understand the literature you're reading, I won't either. I think overviews and real-world examples/contextualization are key to the K debate, particularly when it comes to the alternative. I will have a hard time voting for you if you win your links but not your alt solvency. If you decide to use the links as independent voters, you will need to prove uniqueness to the aff.

I have a higher burden of proof for (completely) Non-T affs. I generally think topicality is good and I think it's pretty easy to make most Ks topical, especially if you adopt a loose/creative interpretation of topicality. This doesn't mean I won't vote for a Non-T aff, but if your opponent reads T-Framework against you, I'd advise you to interact with the content of the shell. I rarely buy that case outweighs unless you can prove that it would be a performative contradiction for you to be topical.

FW/Phil: I've been getting into analytic philosophy in college, so I may understand these arguments more than I did when I was debating. That said, I'm still not super confident in my ability to evaluate fw debate outside of basics like Kant or Hobbes, so err on the side of over-explanation. I also want to see frameworks with syllogisms, not just random independent justifications.

Policy: Assume I don't have any topic knowledge. I'm fine with counterplans and PICS. I'm not going to vote on a tiny chance of extinction. Larping doesn't mean you can't be creative!

Other things to be aware of:

Use the author's name when extending warrants/case turns.

You can ask questions, but please don't argue with me after I make a decision. It can only hurt you.

Show me, your opponent, and yourself the utmost respect in (and out of) round.

Try to enjoy yourself! In my ideal world, debate is more about experimenting with different ideas and developing a nuanced worldview than any competitive success. If you read something really creative I'll definitely bump your speaks.

Sarai Pridgen Stuyvesant HS

Andrea Reier Lexington HS

Matthew Repecki Harrison

Daniel Rohacs Princeton

Dana Rubin Harrison

Aanya N Schoetz Scarsdale HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Aanya. I've done LD for three years at Scarsdale High School. I debate on the national circuit

Please bring flow paper to the round! (thanks a bunch)

Contact information: aanya1111@icloud.com (but tbh if you want to reach me FB messenger is the way to go)

I will do my best to judge like my teammate, Vivian Guo. The rest of the stuff on this paradigm will be the stuff on her paradigm that I agree with:

-------

Hi, I'm Vivian. I've done LD for two and a half years at Scarsdale High School. I have experience on the local and national circuit, but the nat.circ. is my main domain.

Contact information: vivianguo07@gmail.com. You can also FB messenger me at Vivian Guo. Feel free to ask me any questions.

I'll do my best to judge like my teammate, Zachary Siegel. The rest of the stuff on this paradigm will be the stuff on his paradigm that I agree with:

--------

Hi, I'm Zach-- I've done LD for three years at Scarsdale High School. I primarily debate on the national circuit.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I'll try to judge like Claire Liu (the following is from her paradigm that I agree with):

--------

Email: claireliu333@gmail.com

General:

I'll try to judge like Matt Chen (the following is from his paradigm that I agree with).

Here's just a list of basic expectations I have -

3] Weigh as early as possible - i.e. disad outweighs case in 1nc, t standards weighing in 1ar. The later you weigh, the lower my credence in your claims is

4] Collapse to 1-2 things in your last speech, please. Split rebuttals are rarely a good sign for speaks.

7] don't be offensive.

Important Notes:

2] For more traditional debaters: do your thing. I am receptive to arguments about why progressive debate is bad and why traditional debate is better and will vote for them if you win them.

Speaks:

2] The best way to get good speaks is to make me laugh, and I laugh at probably everything.

3] If you are flight 2, please please please set up the email chain before the round and I will boost both of your speaks by +.1

Zach Siegal Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 4:03 PM EDT

TOC Conflicts 2024: Anika Ganesh, Yesh Rao, Tanya Wei, David Xu, Mason Cheng, Spencer Swickle, Derek Han, Riley Ro

New Updates:

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about studying computer science or philosophy in college or if you're interested in computer science research, especially in artificial intelligence or natural language processing!
Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.
I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.
Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD, where I broke at the TOC twice. I now coach LD at Scarsdale and attend Princeton '25, pursuing a major in computer science and minors in philosophy and mathematics.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I have the most experience judging theory and philosophical framework debates. I have less experience judging policy and K debates, although I will do my best to evaluate all rounds in a non-interventionist manner. I feel fine judging clash debates (e.g. policy v K) but you DO NOT want me in the back of the room if the round comes down to a technical policy debate.

Some musings:

Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.
I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.
I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.
I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.
I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.
Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

Pranathi Srirangam Lexington HS

Matt Sussman Scarsdale HS

Last changed on Sun April 26, 2020 at 9:16 AM EDT

Hello, I'm Matt Sussman. I'm a Senior at Scarsdale High School, and I've done LD for the last four years.

Short Version (TLDR):

-Read what you want, I’ll evaluate any arguments

-CLASH AND WEIGH

-Be respectful and nice

-Ask me questions, my job is to help you get better at debate

LD in general:

-My email is mattsuss01@yahoo.com

-Be nice and respectful to both me and your opponent

-Sit or Stand – doesn’t matter

-I have a pretty low threshold for extensions – If something is conceded, say extend _____ and explain why that matters in the grand scheme of the round

-If it's not on my flow, I won’t vote on it

-Don't say something is conceded unless your opponent clearly doesn’t respond to it

-Keep your own time

-The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more

-If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, overtly ableist etc. I will stop the round and give you a L20

-If you have a question about my paradigm ask me before the round

Speaker Points

-I try to average a 28 to 27.5 for Novice

-Things that get you good speaks: Strategy, good CX, interesting and unique arguments, interesting rounds, weighing, good crystallization, you read my paradigm or being funny

-Things that hurt speaks: being offensive, being rude, being late or being overly condescending in CX

Novice LD

-My job is to help you get better at debate, so please ask questions

-Go at a speed your opponent can understand

-I’ll disclose who won at the end of the round and give suggestions for what you could improve on

-Please write down my comments

-Don’t be frustrated about my decision, try to learn and ask questions

-CLASH! Respond to your opponents arguments in both framework and contention

-Morality = Justice (Unless you tell me otherwise)

-Be strategic - think about the arguments you are making and what they do for you in the round

JV LD

General

- I am a tech debater and would LOVE to judge a tech round

- Be conscious of your opponent’s skill level and what your opponent is comfortable with

- You can spread in front of me – I will call SLOW and CLEAR and LOUD without hurting your speaks

- Slow down for author names, tag lines and other important information

- Use flash or email chain

- Compiling a speech file counts as prep, but sending a doc or flashing a doc is not

- I default to Truth Testing

- I default to Metatheory>T>Theory>K>Phil>Substance

Theory/T

- The strategy is most of my rounds – I’m pretty capable to vote on theory

- Frivolous Theory is usually acceptable – be conscious skill level

- I default to yes RVIs, Fairness and Education are voters, Drop the Debater, and Competing Interps

- I default to text over spirit of the interp

- I default to pragmatics over semantics

- Weigh between standards

- I’ll vote off disclosure, but I don’t think it should be norm for JV

Phil

- I am familiar with the basic philosophers

- I somewhat understand most other philosophers but please be clear in round of what they say or advocate for

- For most high theory – overexplain

- Rounds with a good phil debate are underrated and should happen more often

- Although not my favorite, I’ll still evaluate

- Explain why the K is pre-fiat or I will evaluate it as substance and also why the K comes before other arguments

- Weigh role of the ballots against counter-role of the ballots

- Role of the ballots should be accessible by your opponent

Non-T Affs/Performance

- I will evaluate these, but you need to explain why I am voting on these and how to vote on these

- Be clear with your advocacy and what we are getting out of this round

CPs/DA

- <3 Larp - these are underused

- If we are not evaluating under util, then explain to me how these still link

- Don’t over exaggerate the impacts

Tricks/Spikes

- Very Strategic

- I’ll vote off them if they’re on my flow

- Give me implications and why that matter in the round

Eric Tang Lexington HS

Annie Wang The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Tue March 28, 2023 at 10:36 AM EDT

Note: Made some edits to my paradigm since I'm a 3rd year out now...

Hi! I debated LD for Bronx Science (NY) for 4 years, qualled to TOC senior year. I'm studying Philosophy right now at Johns Hopkins.

Email chain: anniewang9422@gmail.com

Quick Prefs

Pomo or High Theory Ks/Performance Ks/Phil: 1/2

FW/T: 3

Tricks/Theory: 4

Policy/LARP: 5

IR/Security Ks: 6/STRIKE

Overview

You can read whatever you want and I'll do my best to adapt. I would rather there be a good round than you trying to adapt by reading something you've never done before.
I really, really, like phil or k substantive debate (does not have to be topical but one-off NC then AC top-down strats would make me happy). Will boost speaks for a good clash.
Don't be mean in CX, especially if someone you're debating is clearly a novice/someone less experienced than you.

I read a lot of pomo Ks my senior year, the ones I'm most familiar with are Deleuze, Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Warren, Nietzsche, Marx, Edelman, and Wilderson. I don't think this list matters though I'm sure there are many books/articles written by these authors I haven't read.
I tend to err truth>tech in rep K situations where the card is miscut/misrepresented.
I don't really understand IR or Security Ks... Please over-explain.
Default Tech>>>>>>Truth unless you make arguments for otherwise.

T/Theory

I'm more familiar with T than Theory, but I guess they are structurally similar.
Case-specific standards are really cool.

Phil

Familiar with a lot of philosophy, please explain things regardless.
Slow down (please) on fully analytic phil cases. Examples are cool.

Tricks

I'm not amazing at flowing, especially blippy exempted 10 point underviews so if I miss something rip
Technicality and flowing aside. I find induction/deduction/skep debates interesting if done properly.

Policy/LARP

I'll try my best :(

Miscellaneous

1. Will yell 'clear' as many times as needed, and will probably not dock speaks but if I miss an arg it's on you. My face is pretty expressive, maybe explain more if I look confused...

2. Compiling doc is prep, sending is not, pls don't steal prep.

3. +.2 speaks if you show me your wiki BEFORE I submit the decision (osource, first 3 last 3 in the textbox, and round reports - you can attach a screenshot when sending out the speech doc)

4. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc... and don't plagiarize from people's wiki without giving credit

5. Not sure how judge kick works, be clear if that's something you are going for.

Betsy Wangensteen Byram Hills HS

Ashley White Newark Science 8 rounds

Steven Wu Harrison None

Kevin Yang Lexington HS

Derek Ying Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun February 13, 2022 at 10:48 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Derek.

he/him

Put me on the email chain: djying2003@gmail.com

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

This is a bit disorganized, but I've ordered these sections based on importance (in my opinion).

Last major update was on Jan 14 2022 for evidence ethics rules clarifications and some more reasons to increase speaker points.

HOW I EVALUATE DEBATES:

I evaluate debates by isolating the most important issue(s) in the round, then doing more nitty-gritty flow comparisons to determine who is winning that issue. This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner.

Debate, at its core, is a game. However, the nature and meaning of that game is extremely malleable. This means two things:

1. Tech>Truth unless safety, evidence ethics, or other rule-breaking is an issue.

2. My ideological preferences otherwise will have no bearing on the round and you can and should do whatever it takes to win, whether that entails bracketing out consequences, impact turning the apocalypse, critiquing rhetoric, or reading a nine-point dump on why taking prep time destroys education.

WHAT I WON'T VOTE ON:

There are a few things I won't vote on or evaluate:

1. Arguments that are made outside of your speech time (e.g. during prep time or your opponent's speech time) or lack warrants. I think Rafael Pierry's definition of a warrant is correct and have pasted it here:

"My general guideline for a warrant is: could I explain this argument to the other team in a reasonable post-round and feel confident that it was said by their opponents? This explanation doesn’t mean I need to have a deep intellectual grasp of the position, simply that I could re-state it and the losing side would understand why they lost."

2. Ad hominems or any attack on an individual debater's integrity/character.

3. Anything about clothes (unless you're wearing something super messed up like a well-known hate symbol)

4. Things that are patently unsafe (for clarification: I will vote on things like spark, animal wipeout, or even just Ligotti-style "death good", but not something like "white supremacism good" or any other sort of explicit bigotry - you'll get an L0 if you read the latter and I will inform the tournament organizers, possibly coaches as well).

5. Stuff about speaks (e.g. "give both debaters a 30 for reciprocity")

6. Arguments that are "inserted". That means you have to read re-highlights. I'll grant an exception if you have only re-highlighted punctuation.

7. New arguments in the final rebuttal (unless they're responding to something read in the speech immediately preceding, obviously) or arguments that proactively justify such (e.g. "I get new 2ar arguments for timeskew"). I'll put another two Rafael Pierry quotes here to clarify:

"Dropped arguments are absolutely true, but an argument only consists of the words you said. Additional words, warrants, or evidence are certainly new and merit new responses."

"In a similar vein, cross-applications are never new. You can persuade me that the opposing team made new arguments while cross-applying something and I’ll likely grant you new contextualization, but I am extremely unlikely to disallow cross-application in a final rebuttal."

LOGISTICAL RULES:

If you blatantly contradict your case in cx (e.g. claiming you skipped an off that you actually read) your speaks will begin at a 26, though I will "accept" the answer (e.g. I will remove the off from my flow). If you lie about having read something you didn't that is equal to clipping and will be evaluated as such (see clipping section).

Give content warnings for sensitive subjects and death good - if you think it could be sensitive just err on the side of caution - if someone does get triggered because you didn't give a warning you will be dropped and speaks will be tanked.

Please time yourselves, and feel free to call out your opponent if they are taking more time than they should or stealing prep. I've been trying (and will continue to try) to time the rounds I judge but I often find myself forgetting to.

Prep time stops when the speech doc is sent, or when the thumb drive is removed. You don't need to take prep time for tech issues or bathroom breaks, just try to get things resolved in a timely manner.

You won't be penalized for not answering a question asked outside of CX.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

In general, I will not be particularly knowledgeable on the topic. You should explain particular nuances to me or else I will not get them. However, I will note down some things that I am aware of for each topic. This does not mean that you can avoid explanation altogether: If your opponent reads and wins something that completely contravenes my understanding of the topic (e.g. if they read "to strike means to hit" and it's dropped), then I am more than happy to vote on it.

Jan-Feb 2021: I know generally what the Outer Space Treaty says about national appropriation of space and the general consensus among legal scholars about what that means for private entities (spoilers: they can't appropriate space either! unless it's mining for some reason - and apparently building bases perhaps? International law is very strange).

Nov-Dec 2021: I know enough about the NLRA to know that just expanding its scope is clearly not topical.

Sept-Oct 2021: I am familiar with what the term "evergreening" means and the length of time it takes for a patent to expire under TRIPS.

LESS IMPORTANT THINGS THAT STILL SHOULD BE NOTED:

I'm not good at minesweeping so I'd prefer if you put tricks (if you read tricks) in the doc. At the very least, slow down if you are coming up with a prioris off the top of your head.

If you tell me not to flow you, I won't flow, but I also won't evaluate.

What you do with evidence is more important than the evidence itself. I don't intend to read a lot of the evidence after the round unless I find it suspicious (see ev ethics). Unintuitive claims require more evidence and/or more explanation.

I don't disclose speaks.

You can use CX as prep time. I won't dock points for it.

You can call me "judge" "Derek" "Mr. Ying" or anything.

If you open-source all of your cards (including the ones on case!!!!! and the 1AR!!!!!) and tell me before the round I'll give you +0.3 speaker points.

"Eval after...": I will flow the whole debate, but I can be persuaded to not look at certain sections of the flow. In other words, if "Evaluate the debate after the 1AR" is won, I won't stop flowing and immediately start writing the RFD after that speech, just that after the round is over I will be disinclined to look at anything past the 1AR. I should also note that if the "eval after" argument is made inside the speech the argument is telling me to evaluate after then I will accept responses in the speech immediately after (e.g. the 2NR can respond to "eval after the 1AR" if it was made in the 1AR and I'll evaluate it).

ONLINE DEBATE:

Having your camera on is preferable but not needed.

Keep local recordings of speeches on hand. If I don't hear something due to connection issues and no recording is available, I will have no choice but to assume nothing was said.

If my camera is off, you should assume I am not ready or even present at my computer absent an explicit verbal cue.

I currently live in the UK. If I am judging online you should be aware that I am between 5 (for east coasters) and 8 (for west coasters) hours ahead of you. If I make statements that seem incongruous with the time (e.g. "wow it's dark" even though it's noon where you are) or seem far more tired than would be expected this is why.

In addition, my residence is next to a very busy street which gets especially loud at night (on my end, it will likely be sometime closer to the afternoon for you). Feel free to ask me to repeat things as many times as you wish if you did not hear them.

EVIDENCE ETHICS:

I think that, for the most part, evidence ethics and quality should be debated in round - if a card is cut out of context or is highlighted to misrepresent authorial intent this seems more of an in-round issue than something you should stake the round on. I am open to theory shells that defend a norm outside of the actual evidence ethics rules (e.g. "no brackets ever" or "cite must have DOA"), but I will evaluate it like any other argument.

Originally, I had a section explaining the evidence ethics rules I personally adhered to, but after some consideration, I have chosen to defer to the NSDA rules, as they are the highest authority, whether I agree with their judgments or not. I'll reproduce the rules here, though they will be shortened based on how I interpret the text of the manual.

Evidence is anything that is directly attributable to a specific source. For example, quotes and cards are evidence because it can be attributed to a single author or organization, but something like "the population of Earth is seven billion" is not evidence because it is not attributable to any specific source, it is just some fact floating out there.

There are four evidence ethics "hard rules" that constitute a loss if they are violated. If a debater is found to have violated these rules, they will get an L0:

1. Words that are added to the card's body must be bracketed in, and cannot distort the author's intent.

2. Evidence must have cites, and they must be correct. If someone (correctly) points out that the cite is not there the debater has twenty minutes to find it and show it.

3. The argument in a card cannot have been written with the intent to disprove it. (e.g. if someone says "Some say that white chocolate is superior to dark. Here is why they are wrong." and the only part you read is "white chocolate is superior to dark" then that is a violation.) I personally interpret this to mean that the argument is introduced in the original article specifically and only so that it can be torn down with practically no merits left standing, not a light critique of the argument or a partial agreement with nuances or corrections.

4. Text cannot be removed from the middle of a card. Substituting removed text with an ellipsis (three dots) is apparently especially heinous for the NSDA. I believe using "they continue" is an acceptable substitute for making a whole new card, because it clearly demarcates when each section begins and ends, like a card tag would, even if not actually a card tag.

Violations of points 1 and 2 are reasons to be disqualified from the tournament.

These four points are the only ones that can a debater stop the round on. Wrong evidence ethics allegations will be punished with a loss. The rules don't define any speaker point penalties, so I will just give an L26. The "winner" of an evidence ethics dispute will be given a W29.3 (rules don't specify anything for the winner, so I'll just give a somewhat above-average speaker score).

There are other evidence rules, but the rules say that I don't need to take action if they are violated, so I won't, with one exception: If it's not published or otherwise available online, it's not evidence and I will not evaluate it. If you want to card your email exchange with a scholar, put it on a blog first.

CLIPPING:

I read along with cards. if I catch a debater clipping I'll let the debate finish (unless someone stakes the round, then I'll stop), then drop the offender with the lowest speaks possible. If you skip 3 or more words, it's clipping.

If you stake the round on clipping you should have a recording in case I didn't catch it, but if I did catch it then whether or not you have a recording won't influence my decision.

DEFAULTS:

I don't like having to use defaults for anything other than presumption or judge kick. Judge instruction will be rewarded with a less confusing and more "correct" ballot.

1. Presumption flows negative unless someone gives a warrant for why it shouldn't.

2. I don't start off with judge kick, but I will allow it if someone says that they should have it, even absent a warrant (unless it's contested, obviously).

3. When it comes to anything else, I will try to operate under the shared assumptions of both debaters. For example, if the 2nr collapses to theory and the 2ar collapses to an RVI but neither DTD no RVIs were ever justified or refuted (don't do this btw), I'll assume that theory is DTD with RVIs. This also applies to substance: If the aff's sole contentions are "plan prevents a nuclear war" and every neg argument consists of "plan causes nuke war" I would assume nuclear war is really bad and the only thing I should care about even if neither side gives reasons why.

SPEAKS:

I'm not going to put one of those speaks chart things because I know I won't be consistent with it. Just know that I will reward good, well thought out strategies and creativity with higher speaks and punish irritating/bad strategies with lower ones. Unfortunately, "good" and "bad" strategies are ultimately ideological, so I have clarified what I think here. However, just because I think something is bad doesn't mean I won't vote on it nor will it bias me against it (ideally).

Creativity: I like it when people demonstrate that they have kept up with the lit on a subject instead of simply relying on what are now basically ancient blocks. Kritiks and phil FWs with recent evidence, are proof of this, as are up-to-date impact turns or defense. Novel Ks and FWs, those that are outside of the established Kant/Hobbes/Baudrillard/pessimism "canon" are also very good, and such venturing into unexplored territory combined with recent evidence will make me a very happy camper.

I think also that arguments tailored to the arguments being read are also quite nice, like an aff-specific counterplan or K link. Some topicality or theory shells may also be somewhat aff specific, but obviously no shell will be completely germane to the aff, otherwise it wouldn't establish any real rules or limits. Combo shells are an exception, but in my personal opinion their interp texts are overcomplicated and could be simplified considerably into a generalized shell - they're only specific in name.

Specificity is also a good thing for on-case stuff. For policy stuff, answers that are specific to the advantage being read or some deficit to the specific plan text is always better than just reading generic impact defense constantly. For responding to a K or K aff, I should note that the lit used in Ks is by its nature controversial and thus, barring the field or idea being completely new (which is very unlikely), there will be a healthy amount of works arguing against it. I will enjoy responses that indicate you have actually gone across the library and read about why the specific author or thesis is wrong rather than a generic "politics is good" defense.

Speaking of Ks, I also like it when multiple different fields of critical scholarship are merged into a coherent argument. Exploring intersections between, for example, cybernetics and race, demonstrate a good grasp of the fields, though obviously it must be argued well or I will not be convinced you truly understood it.

Phil debate is weird to me not because of the tomfoolery it is associated with (which I will mention in the "bad strategies" section) but because it, in my experience, has had a lot of the specific argumentation I praised earlier - for example, answers to Kant tend to be only applicable to Kant - yet most of it is analytical. I think that there is potential for phil debates to center more around evidence and I will reward people who have more (good) cards: I think that much of the understanding of phil debate as a "blip-storm" would not exist had the style cited more scholars.

I enjoy weird counterinterps to T shells as long as they are backed up by definitions or some way of understanding words in the resolution. While this is mostly meant for K affs, there are many policy affs that push the boundaries of what the topic includes, and when those affs have viable counterinterps with definitions, they often are more impressive than the K affs. On that note, Nebel T is boring and I will look more favorably upon any T definition that can achieve a similar effect (that is, exclude nearly all advocacy texts save for one or perhaps two) without using the phrase "bare plural".

Theory (not topicality) is in a strange position for me. I think that right now theory debate is a bit too bound to fairness. While certainly theory debaters love to harp on about the value of the game and equity and such and such, perhaps some more creative (or perhaps more absurd, for theory's critics) interps can be revealed by building shells around standards like education (and its subtypes e.g. phil ed, critical ed, real world, etc.) or norm-setting, or some part of the game we call debate outside of raw procedural fairness.

Bad strategies: I believe personally that debate's competitive nature encourages the above things: creativity, novel scholarship, and good research in general. However, the need to extract concessions from the opponent, often also encourages some nonsense, like obscene amounts of non-topic-specific NIBs and a prioris (three's pushing it) and buzzword vomit extensions that explain nothing. I will dock points for such strategies. There are also some obvious blunders that I will decrease points for, like reading multiple disclosure shells or dropping something that clearly blows open your whole contention like a case turn.

Being an [redacted for tabroom] gets your speaks tanked and coach+tab informed. Debate's community is rather toxic as it is right now and I do not wish the problem to continue. Ethos is one thing, but harassment is another.

NOVICES AND TRADITIONAL:

If you are debating a novice or a traditional debater and you are not either of those you should try to make the round more accessible. That does not mean you should change your strategy significantly, but I will expect you to do the following or else suffer low speaks:

1. Send analytics and extensions. This is thousands of times more important than anything else. If you are reading something dense, you should send analytics even if you don't spread.

2. Be very clear in cross-x. Do not try to pull any "what's an apriori" stuff or other tomfoolery. Get to the point.

3. Explain things more and slower than you usually would. Make sure the round is educational. Ideally, the opponent should be able to understand what you have said, and, in theory, could beat it back. Is it Kant? Make sure they exit the round knowing what the categorical imperative is. Baudrillard? Both sides should get the gist of the hyperreal by the time everything's done. Obviously, this is wishful thinking but please try.

BACKGROUND:

I have put this second to last because I don't believe it is important - the only thing you should take away from this was that I dabbled in many styles but did not master any.

I debated in LD for Lexington from 2017 to 2021. I was a trad debater as a freshman, a phil debater as a sophomore, a policy/phil debater as a junior, and fairly flexible my senior year - I read Ks and K affs whenever I could with occasional policy, theory and phil strategies. As a debater, I leaned more towards high theory (e.g. Paul Virilio, Giorgio Agamben, Yuk Hui, Ingrid Hoofd) than identity, though I did read an identity aff my senior year.

It should be noted that "fairly flexible" does not mean "circuit success" - I was in fact a very subpar debater and rarely cleared.

I am not debating in college.

FOOD:

I never understood why people gave judges food, but I had at least one teammate who was given food by a debater they judged so I will note some things down if you decide to do this.

1. Usually, I am not hungry. I will reject offers of food under nearly all circumstances. Do not be offended if your offer is for naught.

2. I despise eggplant dishes, most soy products (e.g. soymilk, tofu, edamame, etc,), and apples. The latter two cause my throat to itch and swell up a bit (not anaphylaxis, just a minor, if very unpleasant reaction). I have never eaten the former without literally gagging.

3. My spice tolerance is absurdly low. Shin black instant ramen has made me cry before. I wish this was a joke.

Daniel Zhang Scarsdale HS 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

The 16th Scarsdale Invitational

2019 — Scarsdale, NY/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

Judges