Tabroom.com

Yale Invitational

2016 — New Haven, CT/US

JV Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Noah Amsel Hire None

Kaleta Arase Pine View School None

Aidan Bissell-Siders Dallastown Area HS

Last changed on Tue October 13, 2020 at 6:26 PM EDT

Background:

Judged 2016-2020

Lincoln-Douglass, Congressional Debate 2012-2016

he/him/his or they/them/theirs

(I'm not nonbinary. Normalize gender neutral language!)

‎

Universal expectations:

* Don't be disrespectful.

* Don't promote bigotry.

* Add me to the email chain: a.bissell.siders [at] gmail [dot] com

‎

Lincoln-Douglass paradigm:

I believe high-school debate should have three goals:

[1] Education to improve research skills (reading and understanding articles). Therefore:

* I generally prefer truth (evidence) over tech (theory).

* I generally prefer fewer but well-warranted claims over more but poorly-warranted claims.

* Quantitative evidence & impacts often beat qualitative evidence & impacts (unless you weigh them well!).

* [Research shows that empirical evidence does change people's minds (eg, Wood and Porter 2018). Bennyboi Shapiro ain't right about much, but he's right about "facts and logic".]

[2] Competition to improve communication skills (listening and speaking). Therefore:

* If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Guide me.

* I generally prefer fair-ish rounds with roughly equally accessible ground.

* I generally prefer clarity and concision over speed.

* [Non-debaters speak around 100-200wpm and comprehend 200-300 wpm. Aim below 300 wpm! Focus on compressing your sources rather than expanding your speaking rate!]

[3] Provide an accepting and enjoyable space. Bigotry has no room here. Don't attack your opponent, attack their arguments. Four-letter words are fine. Humor is wonderful. Be yourself. Relax, you'll do fine.

‎‎‎‎

Congress paradigm:

All speeches: Debate the bill!

* Stock bad: Debate about the bill! Don't give generic introductions. Don't give generic arguments.

* Link bill to impact: Don't just say "impact X is bad" or "X is good". Do provide evidence that "bill does Y and Y causes X".

* Weigh impacts: Do give impacts for each argument. Do weigh impacts against opposition's impacts.

Negative speeches: Demonstrate harm!

* Insufficiency is not a harm: Don't just say "bill is bad because it doesn't do X" unless you provide evidence that "bill is mutually exclusive with X".

* Complacency is usually not a harm: Don't say "bill is bad because it partially solves X, which makes people complacent about X" unless you provide evidence that "partially solving X makes people complacent about X".

First affirmative and first negative speech: Provide framework!

* Provide framework: Establish the framework to weigh impacts for the debate.

Later speeches: No rehash!

* No rehash: Don't make the same arguments unless you give new evidence.

* No rehash.

Presiding Officer:

* I highly rank strong POs. Efficient, knows rules of order, commands chamber.

Peter Cancro Byram Hills

Peter P Cancro's Judge Philosophy:

Some quick background; I've been judging debates, albeit at the HS level, for over a decade (and averaging over 100 rounds a year for the last 5 years or so). Fall 2013 will be my first semester working with KSU, and thus judging on the college level.

That said, I don't really have much of a paradigm anymore. I'm willing to vote on anything for any reason. The only rules that are non-negotiable are the speech times and some degree of civility/professionalism, and adherence to all legal constraints applicable to the jurisdiction(s) in which the debate occurs.

I prefer not to call for or read evidence; it should be the debaters' job to articulate what the evidence actually says and contest its meaning.

Any other preference I could list here would be a "weak default", subject to change based on the content of the debate round and relevant argumentation within it. For example, in general, I will consider evidence more credible than a debater's assertions. As a weak preference, that could be overcome by a debater's arguments and warrants contending that thier particular assertion is more credible or true than a particular card in that debate (especially if this argument is made, a warrant is given, and the other team drops it).

Other than the above, and the classical advice "don't drop things", the best way to win debates in front of me is to "get underneath" whatever level of analysis of the debate your opponent is engaging in. For example, if no one is dropping anything, but are only clashing based on the tags of the cards, you could easily win by making claims about the warrants of the relevant cards. If the warrants are being contested, then you could either give empirical examples that demonstrate why your card's warrants are superior (more true or more applicable to the circumstances being debated).

I hope that gives you some sense of who I am as a judge, and wish you luck competing or coaching someone to compete in front of me!

Paresh Chauhan Princeton

Becky Crowley Lake Highland Preparatory

James Daniel Hire None

Doron Darnov Hire

Katie DeBois Harrison HS

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 4:26 AM EDT

Updated 12.04.2021

TLDR

Background: Been judging for a long time, I'm currently a science teacher who judges sporadically during this time.

How I determine the winner: I will pick the strongest argument a round for that to determine the winner. It could come from any theory, k, or traditional style. If you are going to run a k or theory, do it well and be confident in that because I am not the most familiar in them. I strongly prefer traditional debate (like if you run traditional debate, I will appreciate 10 times more), but do what you feel will help you win the round. (More in this in the long version).

Weighing and voting issues: give me them so I know what you believe are the things I should value highly in the round. It will help you win.

Speed: speak clearly and if you speak too fast after me telling you to slow down 3 times, I will likely stop flowing. I judge what I flow, so that could cost you the round.

Respect: Be respectful of everyone.

GOOD LUCK!

LONG VERSION
Basic Information About Me:

I am a teacher and I have been judging in the circuit since I was a junior in high school for Novices, and then during my time in college I have judged here and there (so about 7 years). Most of my judging experience does come from 6 years ago, so I am not an expert in the nuances of debate.

Debate Style/Technique/Arguments

I know and understand the fundamentals of debate. Like don't go new in the 2, I know what is a turns is, what are extensions are, etc. I am aware of theory and k-shells, but don't fully understand the nuances in them. If you are going to run these things on me, I would expect that you know what you're doing and that you could "guide" me through the round as to why you're running them and why you believe that using them would help you win. I won't know if you're doing them correctly, so I am assuming that you are. If I suspect that it was not done well, then I probs won't pick you. With that being said, I do like when there is some type of traditional debate, but run what you feel most confident in or what your strongest arguments are.

I feel most comfortable and confident judging traditional style debate. It's fun for me, and if you want the best decision where I can fully defend my reasoning for decision forever, you should have a traditional style round. One thing that I do love is solvency. Please explain to me how your side solves best.

That brings me to my main point, I am not going to nitpick your "technique" in the round. However, I will nitpick the strength and delivery of your argument. I vote for whatever argument(s) hold(s) the most ground in the round. If your main argument is not the strongest argument in the round or you just weren't good at expressing why it should be, don't expect to win. Were you convincing enough? Was there a lot of evidence to support that argument? That is what I mean by strength and delivery.

Weighing and Voting Issues

Weighing and voting issues are IMPERATIVE to me. Since I do base my vote on what is the strongest argument in the round, weighing and voting issues tell me that from your perspective. We all have different experiences and backgrounds because of that, we are going to value things differently. I might value an environmental or education argument highly because of my interests and passions, but you may value a criminal justice or economic argument highly because of whatever reason. Weighing and voting issues tell me as a judge what to value and sort of how to think. When you weigh and give me voting issues, I will then look at the rest of my flow and figure out how that compares to your competitor's arguments. If you don't weigh or give me voting issues, then I will do that for you and it might not be in your best interest because it might cost you the round due to the strength of your arguments. You and I could think that your strongest arguments were 2 separate arguments and that's what could cost you the round.

Speed

We are in a pandemic and we are doing all of this virtually. With that we have to deal with potential complications of technology and wifi, and those barriers that prevent us from seeing each other in person. For that reason, I care a lot if you enunciate your words and speak clearly. I am comfortable with most speeds, but would prefer if you build up to it and don't go super sonic speed. I judge what I flow. If you are speaking too fast and/or you aren't clear, then that will be a problem. If you are speaking too fast for my comfort, I will say "Clear" or "Slow down". I expect you to slow down and stay at that speed for a little while. If I do say "clear" or "slow down" 3 times in the round, and you don't fix/adjust your speed, after the third time, I will likely stop flowing for you for the rest of the round. You will most definitely lose speaks as well, and since I judge what I flow, it might cost you the round. Don't let this happen to you.

Respect

I get that debate is competitive. I get that everyone wants to be the best and win the tournament. That in no way gives you an excuse to be disrespectful to your opponent or me. If you curse or say something transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything offensive at any point in the round, you will lose. I will drop you with whatever is the lowest score I could give you. This comes from the moment we are all in the "room" together to the moment I submitted my decision. At no circumstances is any form of offensive language acceptable, even if it's under your breath. There are like a billion different words and phrases you can use in the English Language, you can avoid saying something offensive. I have no tolerance for this.

Facial Reactions/Expressions

One thing I've found out about myself is that I am a person who shows a lot of my emotions through my face. If I am making a face and you're wondering, "oh that doesn't look good". You're probably right. It either means I am miserable, bored, or like I am confused out of my mind. If you see those faces, I'd change your argument so you don't have to see those not so good faces.

One Final Note

Good luck to everyone! I know we are living in a crazy time right now, but you got this! Be confident in who you are as a debater and you will do well. I typically like to give a "reading test" in my paradigm, but there isn't one this time, so be happy about that. :)

Gabriel Dolsten Hire None

Asim Gaffar College Preparatory School of America

Will Heslop Manchester Essex None

Michael Huang Hire None

Lori Jia Hire None

Ashley Kim Timothy Christian

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2019 at 6:24 AM EDT

I debated for four years for Timothy Christian School and graduated in 2014.

**NEW: PLEASE READ**

What makes me really happy and engaged in rounds: Cases with a strong, unique framework, and that tell a story or paint a picture that appeals to emotion, logic, and intuition. Debaters who extend their frameworks, actively impact arguments back to them, and use their frameworks to exclude their opponents arguments when possible.

What makes me really sad and bored in rounds: Generic util frameworks like "maximizing well-being", "maximizing happiness", "societal well-being", which lead to debaters to try to cover too much in the round and then eventually mutually agree implicitly or explicitly that whoever achieves X wins the round.

**LD**

I value substance and clash (engaging with and actually addressing the warrant of your opponent's argument, weighing, etc.)
I'll evaluate any argument or position as long as it's well-warranted and you give me a working method of evaluation.

Theory is fine as long as you prove that there is actual abuse in the round.

I don't want a line-by-line off-time roadmap. Give me a general roadmap (e.g. "Framework, AC, NC") then signpost (e.g. "Contention 1 subpoint A", "the Neg f/w", "their second contention", etc.) as you debate.

Please confirm with your opponent that you're both okay with flex-prep, evidence sharing, etc. before the round starts.

**Varsity LD**

I have not judged varsity much in the past couple years. It is safe to assume that I have little to no familiarity with circuit arguments. If you run circuit-type arguments, I will do my best to evaluate your position, but it is your burden to be absolutely clear about what is happening in the round. I can evaluate new information, but I don't know all the technicalities associated with circuit arguments.

**All LD**

Please give me a method of evaluation for the round, and link contention level arguments into whichever method you think is winning in the round. Please weigh arguments. I'll flow new arguments and analyses in second rebuttal speeches but I won't vote on them. I generally accept new cross applications, since those involve pre-existing arguments.

I assign speaker points on a 25-30 point scale. Speaker points will reflect how I perceived your ability to make and extend effective arguments, and strategize overall. (25 - completely unprepared, 26 - below average, 27 - average, 28 - good, 29 - very well-done, 30 - excellent; offensive arguments may go below a 25; I don't believe I've ever given lower than a 26 before, and my average is probably around a 28; I try to be a little more lenient with novice speaks, but this doesn't always happen; I also try to assign speaks relatively, based on previous rounds within the tournament)

Good arguments and extensions include a claim, warrant(s), and impact(s). I'll give some leeway to aff extensions, but they must include more than the label ("the value criterion," "Contention 2," "the impact," "[insert card name]"). If an argument is dependent on another argument, you should extend all relevant parts to make your point. If you're the Neg debater and have ample time to do so, I expect a thorough extension of all relevant points. If you're the Aff, please at least extend the claims of the underlying points and explain the important one as needed.

If you are a more experienced debater obviously facing a novice or non-native English speaker, and I detect abuse (spreading, tricks, etc.), this will probably reflect in your speaks.

I won't say you can't spread, but just know that the faster you go and less clear you are, the greater risk you run of me not understanding your arguments. The faster you go, the more I'm just listening for key words and less I'm actually trying to understand what you're saying. If you are going to spread, start slow then speed up. Slow down for tags and card names and anything you really want me to understand/write down. I'll say clear if I don't understand you, and if I say it twice you should consider permanently slowing down.

Recently debaters have started sharing cases via email/USB? This is fine, but don't bother asking me to share your case with me in advance. I'll evaluate the round based on my interpretation of what happened in speeches - if both debaters are clear, my interpretation should be pretty close to what actually happened in the round. I only call for evidence after the round if I feel I need it to make my decision, but this doesn't happen often. If I couldn't understand your evidence/I didn't evaluate it the way you wanted me to, you probably weren't as clear in the round as I needed you to be.

Overall, I'm pretty technical (or I try my best to be at least), but when the round is unclear or very close, I'll probably end up looking for the easiest way to evaluate and judge the round. With that said, if you can appeal to both being technical and giving me an easy way to judge the round, not only will I probably consider your arguments more positively, it will probably also reflect well in your speaks.

Side note: You can ask me to time your speeches/prep for you, but based on experience, I've learned that I am generally a poor time-keeper. I highly prefer debaters to time themselves and each other, and especially keep track of prep-time. If you at least want me to write down your remaining prep time, I will do that for you, just let me know.

**PF**

I've judged PF many times now in the past couple years; I understand PF debate is supposed to appeal to persuading the general public, but like LD, I evaluate the round pretty technically. I also get that there isn't exactly a framework structure in PF, but at least give me some sort of method of evaluation. After all, there must be something that you're trying to achieve. So make that goal explicit, and link back to it throughout the round.

The problem I've had with most PF rounds is that clash/weighing is done poorly, so the round ends up unnecessarily close, making it very difficult for me to make a decision. Please, as best as you can, don't let this happen!

As with LD, I am not a good time keeper, and am even worse with PF. Everyone should keep track of their own time and each other's time.

**ALL**

I will dock speaks for unprofessional dress. I'm fine with casual professional dress and I'm pretty reasonable overall, but you should not come tournaments in sweats and sneakers. If you have special circumstances that prevented you from dressing appropriately and you're worried that I am going to dock your speaks, you can notify me before the round - pass me a note or something if it's a private issue.

Owen Luddy Bridgewater

Danielle Mahoney Half Hollow Hills

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2017 at 2:33 PM EDT

Currently the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Half Hollow Hills HS East, Dix Hills NY
Coaching since 2012
English Teacher since 2005

Experience at the local, state, and national levels.

I am traditional LD judge. Avoid debate jargon. Critiques and Shells are annoying and I cannot stand them. I want Values, Value Criterions, definitions, and Contentions that demonstrate impacts within your value structure. These should be based in philosophy. There should be clear clash throughout the round, but it should be polite and respectful.

Speed: If I cannot flow your arguments, I cannot judge you. If I've dropped my pen, that's your warning sign that you've gone too quickly for me to follow you. This is an event in communication. If you cannot communicate your arguments clearly, effectively, and articulately, then you're in the wrong activity.

Theory: I am adaptable to some theory debates. However, your theories shouldn't dismiss the resolution or create nonsensical rules that hinder the debate round.

As per Mike Evans (from the Judging Philosophies Wiki) , who explains my own philosophy on judging LD expertly:

"I am a humanities teacher whose involvement in LD proceeds from my interest in philosophical debate. I like to see attention to values, value criteria, definitions, and references to recognized philosophers. If you base your case on justice, I expect to hear what kind of justice you have in mind and what ethical system it is based on. If you want to talk about rights, you would do well to explain where those rights come from. I care about contentions only insofar as they support a coherent argument, so I don't particularly care if some one drops sub-point c of contention 3. I loathe spreading. I find critique tedious. I am willing to consider impacts, but in an ideal affirmative-universe/negative-universe way rather than a policy way. I appreciate analysis, logic, clear language, and good manners. In sum, I am a traditional judge."

Jonathan Matthew Timothy Christian

Last changed on Fri January 24, 2020 at 5:49 PM EDT

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

Ryan Monagle Ridge

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2019 at 7:11 PM EDT

UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach

In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.

Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.

Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.

Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.

Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.

For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.

Debbie Morris Lake Highland Preparatory None

Kavita Persaud Cape Fear Academy

Munawar Rahman Stuyvesant HS

Diganta Rashed Byram Hills

Last changed on Fri October 12, 2018 at 7:13 AM EDT

I debated for 4 years at Bronx Science. Questions? Facebook message me, or email me at drashed2009@gmail.com

Bronx Update: I have not judged for the better part of, if not more than, a year. You will definitely need to slow down with most stuff you read in front of me or I will not be able to follow. Flashing/email chains are heavily recommended.

Pre-round version:

Make the round your own, unless you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, or choose to actively exhibit problematic behavior. Read whatever you want, just remember that I haven’t been involved with debate for nearly half a year, so you can bet I likely won’t follow your top speed filled with a massive dump of spike-filled args. Best bet? GO 75% SPEED WITH SLOW TAGS, AND USE A FEW SECONDS OF REBUTTAL TIME TO ROADMAP.

Don’t know what I absolutely WONT listen to? Check the bottom of the paradigm.

Ask me for clarifications if you need to know about any specific type of argument you want to read.

Long Version:

Debate, despite its disadvantages, is still a forum for competitive education. You can still have the aspect of competition, but don’t sacrifice education for it. I have no particular preferences for what kind of argument you choose to run. I will listen to most arguments so long as the premise of your debate is not to actively exclude the other debater. I do have arguments that I will paradigmatically not listen to, check the list at the bottom of the paradigm to find out which.

Be courteous. Don’t be mean. Now, I guess specifics are in order.

Framework:

I like listening to well-written frameworks. If you are able to explain to me the logical justification behind why I should believe that actions derived from some ethical principle is good, chances are you will have the framework debate down. Have solid justifications in the framework and MAKE SURE THEY ARE WARRANTED.

T/Theory

I default competing interps, drop the argument on theory, and drop debater on T. If you are able to convince me otherwise, it better be well warranted. Reasonability is also fine as long as there is an explicit metric and threshold for what exactly is reasonable within the context of the arguments in play during the round. Don’t read friv theory, chances are I won’t enjoy it, you’ll get low speaks and I will more likely be inclined to vote against you for it.

I was a performance/K debater during my senior year. I believe the judge serves the role of an educator meaning Ks do belong in debate, don’t just prima facie try to exclude them. There is a vast ocean of literature so do not expect me to be well read on everything, so explanations of the literature are recommended.

Misc.:

· Roadmap so I know where on the flow you are

· First time judging in a while, so go slow

Arguments I will ABSOLUTELY not vote for

· Disclosure theory

· Skep vs. Ks

· Racism doesn’t exist bc science

· List will get longer in the future

If you crack jokes about the following people without being blatantly offensive you will get higher speaks:

1) Neal Kapoor

2) Michael Corder

3) Jacob Ronkin

4) Karan Choudhary

5) Brandon Kramer

6) List to be edited in the future

Russell Ricciardi Hire

Last changed on Wed August 31, 2016 at 8:59 AM EDT

Russ Ricciardi

Judging Paradigm - updated August 31, 2016

SUMMARY DESIGNATION FOR UPCOMING YALE 2016: TRADITIONAL

AFFILIATION: NONE

DEBATE (GENERAL)

I view academic competitive debate as a species of communication arts. You should speak clearly, and presume as little as possible about your audience and your judge. I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round. I will generally not ask to see evidence after the round, even if advised to do so by the opposing team. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly. The burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine. You might say I am rather old-fashioned. Nonetheless, I have voted for “critical philosophy” cases on the rare occasions I have heard them. The key to my ballot is to present the argument logically, clearly, and persuasively.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

At any tournament sponsored or sanctioned by the New York State Forensic League, including particularly all Long Island Forensic League (LIFA) tournaments, I will expect that the primary focus of the debate be on the clash of values or value-criteria. This expectation is supported by the definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate as given by the NYSFL:

>> Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a form of … debate that focuses on values, their inter-relationships, and their relationship to issues of contemporary human concern. The focus is not upon facts to be ascertained or policies to be implemented, although such matters can be referred to as supporting material. Rather, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate should require the students to explain in a persuasive manner the most important values and criteria for judgment about the resolution under debate.<<

The definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate by the National Catholic Forensic League is brief:

>>Individual students debating issues of values and philosophy.<<

In light of the NCFL statement, at any competition under the auspices of the CFL, my judging emphasis on values and philosophy, in preference over policy considerations, will be at least as strong as the emphasis I will bring to any NYSFL-related tournaments.

In contrast, the website of the National Speech and Debate Association (National Forensic League) provides a more flexible description:

>>Many people refer to LD Debate as a “values” debate, as questions of morality and justice are commonly examined.<<

The NSDA statement is much weaker that the two previous statements. It does not place values at the center of the debate necessarily, and it is a qualified descriptive statement, not a normative statement.

As I do not find any stronger authoritative universal statement concerning the relative importance of the values framework to the policy considerations in an LD debate, I will strive to keep an open mind on this point in all competitions not sponsored by the NYSFL or NCFL or their affiliates. I will expect the debaters to each make their case as to how the debate should be decided.

PUBLIC FORUM

In the Public Forum format, debaters should strive to make themselves and their arguments intelligible to the average citizen, not presupposing that their judges or audience have any prior experience, training, or knowledge of interscholastic debate nor the topic under consideration.

Competitive Experience:

College: None

High School: Policy debate, local circuit (1974-77)

Judging Experience:

Total four years local circuit (1981-82, 1986-87, 2014-16)
A few national circuit tournaments in the Northeast

Other Experience:

Attended teacher training track in Public Forum at 2015 Harvard Summer Workshop

If you have any questions or comments for me about this paradigm, or any other Speech and Debate matters,
feel free to contact me at: ricciardi.sd@gmail.com

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

Paradigm originally posted to WikiSpaces Feb. 13, 2015. Last previous revision December 22, 2015.

Wendy Richmond Princeton None

Cesar Rodriguez Hire

Last changed on Tue September 13, 2016 at 10:15 PM EDT

I did three years of policy debate in High School and had experience coaching junior varsity members in PF and World Schools. Did a year of traditional policy and two years of critical/performance debate so yeh but I will vote on anything. Framing is critical to me as a judge whether you go for A disad or procedurals or a critique. If you do not frame the round I will vote based on how I saw the arguments in the round which may not always go in your favor even if you had the better arguments coming out of the block/constructives. That being said, although I am a critic, I will not restrict you and what you want to debate unless I find it to be particularly harmful or violent...so yeah literally run anything in front of me as long as you got the finesse to do it well.

Also little things you may wanna know about me:

This is my first time judging the topic, so I may have a higher T/FW threshold in terms of voting on it. Spread to your heart's content, but having a cadence will make you easier to flow.

DAs - Love me some specific links, not a fan of spending/ptx but hey I'll vote on it.

CPs - I like me a good CP. Run em well, especially in non-policy debates, don't be clearly abusive, real game changers right here. Don't skimp on the internal net benefit analysis either, really make it competitive to the aff regardless of the offense on other flows.

Ks - Just because I was a critical debate doesn't mean I will take an underdeveloped one and do the work for you. If it's a sloppy K debate I will feel disinclined to award high speaks regardless of whether or not I vote on it. Also don't make your alt basic/reject the aff, I want to know how the alternative will solve the impacts of the criticism and also tackel the nuances of the aff.

T/FW/Procedurals - I enjoy judging these debates more than I do debating them. I don't want to hear generic blocks on these, though, really sell your net benefits and why the aff's model of debate is net bad, don't just exclude them. I have a hard time voting on Policymaking framework if it is answered reasonably well, but a different interpretation that allows for the possibility of the aff to be debated in another shape or form can make for a great and productive debate in my opinion. Theory is A-okay with me, especially with critical internals.

Diana Sabzevari Roslyn

Alison Singer Scarsdale HS None

Camille Singh Byram Hills None

Jason Stewart Princeton

Scott Stickney Hampton HS None

Lily Sun Montgomery Blair High School

Will Taft Hire

Maryam Tazari Roslyn

Mrs Valentino Chaminade HS None

David Yastremski Ridge

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Login to Tabroom

Yale Invitational

2016 — New Haven, CT/US

JV Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges