Lexington Winter Invitational
2017 — MA/US
Praveen Agarwal Paradigm
Stephen Alessandro Paradigm
Alayne Ashman Paradigm
Nirmal Balachundhar Paradigm
I no longer care what you read, as long as it is not oppressive in any matter. I only ask that you explain your arguments and their impacts well.
Add me to email chain: email@example.com
Also, if you can sit down early in a speech, please do. That way we can all just go home and be happy a little earlier.
- Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and dock speaks
- I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that
- Prep stops after you have compiled your stuff into one document. If you're flashing- it stops after the flashdrive leaves your computer
- I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and clearly
- Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently and it's brought up in the round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on how I am feeling about this violation) from whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the round.
- You must make your evidence available
- I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh
- I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed
- Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first
- Utilize argument diversity
- Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't know their use even if you have won them
- please compare evidence
- i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase your speaks
- I understand the basics of most theories/general responses. If this is what you're good at- feel free to go for it.
- Explanation is crucial, your framework should be organized in a well explained syllogism, and your explanation should follow from that
- A lot of people just don't cut evidence that warrants their philosophical arguments or use big buzzwords when going for philosophical arguments- don't do that
- Be comparitive: reading dumps on their ethic is insufficient, explain why your ethic is better
- Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it
- Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both
- Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well
- I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these
- Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.
- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other sides
- Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I probably won't be too thrilled and that might reflect in your speaks
- Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks and abuse-
- Weighing and framing is important
- Not a fan of- they prioritize gimmicks over hard work which isn't what educational activities should do
- I will still listen to them but they will reflect in your speaks
- Implications need to be clear in the initial speech
- these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.
- If you come up with some very nuanced and interesting applications against various scenarios, then I'll probably be more receptive to it.
If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping.
Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in round as evidence indicts.
Sara Bove Paradigm
Zoe Brown Paradigm
Nicole Castillo Paradigm
Alyaa Chace Paradigm
Cynthia Chen Paradigm
I currently debate on the LD circuit for Lexington High School -- that being said, I flow on my laptop and am capable of handling speed, just be clear -- for extra speaker points: coffee and jokes
Tiffany Chen Paradigm
Aimin Chen Paradigm
Hi, I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and very clearly, especially on taglines and weighing.
Katie DeBois Paradigm
What I judge/Experience:
I've judged JV and Novice LD, and I competed Novice Year. I flow, I judge what I flow. For the Newark Tournament, this is my first time judging in like 2 years. It's my first time judging Varsity as well. I still remember a lot of debate and the lingo. However, it's why I ask that you're a bit patient with me as I am making decisions and figuring this debate world out again.
I understand theory, but it's not my strong suit. It's not something I am an expert in, so I am going to assume that you will run it well if you run it. Preferably, I love a traditional debate round, but if you insist on running theory then run it well.
Weighing and Voting Issues:
Weighing is something incredibly important to me. Weighing gives me how you look at things during a round. If you weigh, you will get higher speaker points. If you don't weigh it could hurt because you and I perceive things differently, I may think one thing isn't valuable and isn't worthy enough to weigh, while you may think it's the most important thing in the round. This is the same thing for voting issues, tell me what you want me to vote on. If not, I once again may vote on things you don't like or approve of. It's all about perception, also treat me like the laziest person in the world. Tell me how to guide my thinking, and then if you do that it will be so helpful and beneficial to you. Also, put voting issues in your last speech, if you fail to do this, then I will dock speaks.
I haven't judged in about 2 years, so I'm not great with speed. I can understand it, and I will flow what I can. Please be willing to either give me your flow at the end of the round or your case to make sure I didn't miss anything. It's not fair to you, if I didn't get everything down, and I want to make it as fair as possible. However, please enunciate and speak clearly. If you do, then I will probably be able to flow most of the round without needing your flows or cases. (I might check cards to see the evidence in it).
Basically, I am fine with some speed, don't spread so fully because like my ears aren't trained to flow that fully. Also, I can't type that fast. If I say "Clear" or "Slow Down" stay at that pace because then I won't flow it after 3 times of me saying it. DONT SPEED BACK UP!
I do not like when you ask for clarifying questions in cross-x, you can ask those questions during prep or get their case during prep. In cross-x get information that's beneficial to you, and use that information in the round. This will make me like you so much more, and will raise your speaks. Please be polite in cross-x, if you're rude and act like a jerk, I will dock speaks.
It's my favorite thing when someone uses evidence during rebuttals and initials speeches. They use evidence to attack their opponent's case, and that makes me swoon. I love evidence, the more evidence the merrier because it brings proof. Don't just use tag lines, use other stuff and then you will do well.
If you entertain me, either by using a really good card or whatever you will do well in speaker points. Also, please make good and exciting arguments backed up with evidence, I will not believe a word you say unless you have evidence. Please entertain me! I want to enjoy watching the round, I'd rather be sleeping or watching The Bachelor. Also, if you give me food flow paper, pen, and or food I will honestly love you because it shows that you read my paradigm!
JV Only: If I give you a 25 or a 26, you are not ready to go into elim rounds, you messed up some fundamentals and need to work on the things I give you. If I give you a 27, then you're ready to break to doubles. You're average and should fix the things that are making you a 27. If you're a 28, you should break and you did really well. If I give you you a 29, you're amazing and almost godlike. I barely give 30s, and when I do it's because you're a god. You did everything so flawlessly and you should make it to the finals, if not win.
I'm going to assume that you know the fundamentals of debate by now. If I notice key flaws on the fundamentals of debate in the round, then you won't get the highest score. I don't expect to be giving low scores to varsity. If you are not clear and you do not enunciate then you won't get the highest score because that's not being able to flow, it's you not being able to present your message well. That's what might cause you to get a lower score. Hopefully, I won't be giving out low scores, but if I do its because of this reason. One note though, I barely give 30s, and when I do it's because you're a god. You did everything so flawlessly and you should make it to the finals, if not win. (Copied and pasted it word for word from above). Being a 30 is perfect, and nobody is perfect hence why it is a rarity.
DONT BE A JERK!
If you say something racist, homophobic or sexist, I will drop you with a 25 or lower, in the middle of the round. This applies to at ANY point in the round, from the first breathe to the last breathe. DO NOT SAY SOMETHING RACIST, SEXIST, OR HOMOPHOBIC! Also, don't curse. I know I can have a pretty fowl mouth at times, but this is debate and we're supposed to be formal-esq. If you curse, I am going to think you're unprofessional and that you don't care. Since I am going to think this way, I either might drop you right then and there because it's offensive to me because I am spending my time being here or I won't flow any other word you say for the rest of the round for the same reasoning. One thing I'll definitely do is dock speaks and don't expect to get above a 28 because of fowl language. Also, this counts from the first word in the round to the very last word in the round. Don't say it under your breathe either. I don't care if you're the best debater in the whole entire universe, there are MILLIONS of other words to say than a curse word, or something racist, homophobic or sexist.
I wrote this whole thing twice because the first time, it got lost in Internet space. I care. Anyways, good luck you will do great! See yah in the round!
Venuri Desilva Paradigm
Janine Gushue Paradigm
I was an LD debater from 2000-2002 (read: the Stone Age). As you'd likely expect, I'm a traditional style LD judge. Seeing K, disads, and counterplans in value debate bums me out. Hard. That said, I had some VERY limited policy experience in high school as well, so I can probably follow some of the policy crossover; you can just guarantee I'll grind my teeth through it.
I can handle spread...if you can. If you're speedy and articulate, we won't have any problems. If you're speedy with mushmouth, I won't catch everything, and that's an issue.
I tend to keep speaker points in the 26 to 28 range, but don't shy away from higher speaks if you do well. I generally only reserve low speaks for situations that are outright abusive or condescending.
Best strategy to get my ballot is to move cleanly down the flow, crystallize, and outline clear voting issues at the end of the debate!
Eric Jensen Paradigm
Nikki Kim Paradigm
Zhiguo Lai Paradigm
Irene Lam Paradigm
Christine Lee Paradigm
Ryan Leung Paradigm
A little about me: I have debated for three years in LD, and now I'm a freshman in College.
General in Round stuff:
1) I will be keeping track of the speech times, but please keep track of your own prep time.
2) I am open to evaluating any argument that is legitimately warranted and clearly explained. The exception to this rule is if you read something extremely offensive or nonsensical.
3) Don't extend through ink
4) I won't flow your cross-fires, but I will be listening in.
5) Please weigh and engage with your opponent’s arguments. Provide at least a brief framework for me to evaluate the round. Tell me why you are winning and why the impacts that you read in case are more significant.
Yaqing Li Paradigm
Ben Lieberman Paradigm
Nicholas Newton-Cheh Paradigm
Lexington High School '18 UChicago '22
Please include me in an email chain
- Most common args I ran were Affro-pessimism, K affs, policy affs with TJFs, spec, T. Favorite arg was Affropess, but that doesn't mean I'm more likely to vote for it.
- Speed is fine. I'll yell clear but too many times and I'll dock speaks.
- Manage your own prep, compiling speech docs is prep, emailing/flashing isn’t.
- Comfort level: (most comfortable) Kritikal debates (K vs Policy aff, K vs. K aff, K vs. Phil) > LARP and theory/T debates >phil/tricks (least comfortable).
- Debaters who want to read dense phil or nail bomb, spike-laden affs should pref me lower.
- Love good K debates, hate bad ones. I have a high threshold - know your literature, execute effective strategy
- Reasonably familiar with most K's
- K debate should be technical
- The more dense the K lit, the more explanation required
- Prefer specific links over generics
- Clear articulation of the alt is key - Alt's tend to be the weakest part of the K and w/o them most K's are non-unique disads
- Pay more than lip service to framing
- Pls do evidence and impact comparison
- Give me a good overview and collapse effectively - Make it easy for me to evaluate the round
- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop the arg, text>spirit, meta-theory>theory, fairness and education are voters.
- Defaults are stupid
- Read that interp nice and slow. Also be extra clear with standards + warrants as I can only flow so fast. The blippier the arg, the clearer and slower it should be read.
-Give good overviews in last speech.
- Do good weighing - same idea as my larp section, make it easy for me to vote eval the round/vote for you.
- I dislike tricks. As a result, I have a low threshold to answering blippy tricks args. You can read tricky args and still engage in a somewhat substantive debate (e.g. I'll vote off a floating PIK) but if your case is 20+ hidden spikes in a 90% analytic phil FW, I'll be annoyed.
-I will vote on tricks but I am less likely to give you a lot of leeway.
- I wasn't really a phil debater in HS - only really read Kant NC's in phil debates.
- Do a good job explaining and ideally don't just read a bunch of preclusion args the I have to wade through.
- Plagiarizing a friend's paradigm, assume that "my understanding [of your FW] will solely depend on your ability to explain it."
- Speaks average a 28 (I'm pretty generous with speaks) - I don't disclose speaks
- Clipping means intentionally or blatantly claiming to have read something you didn't (be it an analytic in a speech doc or the second half of a card that you didn't mark). It doesn't mean stumbling over a few words. The penalty for misrepresenting evidence or clipping is a loss with 0 speaks. If you initiate an evidence ethics challenge and are wrong the penalty shall be applied to you instead.
- Default to ethical confidence (you can argue ethical modesty tho), presume neg, risk of offense, CX is binding. Defaults will be overridden by in round args.
- Low threshold for extensions. A nice overview at the top of a rebuttal is sufficient. But if you expect to win off an impact and don't mention it at all in your speech, it probably won't be evaluated.
Ariana Oroczo Paradigm
I am a current sophomore at Columbia University and I did LD for 4 years on the national and local circuit. That being said, I did not invest a particularly large amount of time in circuit debate so a lot of the nuances will probably be lost on me if not fleshed out. I am probably not the best judge to any advanced varsity debaters. I would say I'm probs best for, like, sophomores who are working on bridging the gap btwn varsity and novice or more traditional debaters.
-I am well-versed in more traditional analytic philosophy and the big names in continental philosophy (think Focault, Deleuze, Heidegger). I am fine with you running any phil args but the more obscure they get the higher the threshold I have for explaining them.
-I can flow speed but I haven't seriously judged LD in two years and was also bad so, like, maybe give me 75% of ur full speed. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH-- SPREADING IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND I HAVE NOT CONSISTENTLY HAD TO FLOW IT IN YEARS-- SLOW DOWN
-I really like Ks and think the more personal/narratively structured they are the more interesting!
-Default to competing interps
-K before theory (most of the time)
-Drop the debater
-Will vote on RVIs
-I literally hate cap Ks like I don't want to hear any cap args
-anything else feel free to ask!
Benna Rondini Paradigm
Sarah Rosenberg Paradigm
You can run whatever you want as long as it's not offensive. My attention span is pretty short so if I look like I stopped flowing and/or I'm spacing out just get my attention, especially if something important is happening in CX. PLEASE SIGNPOST.
Tammie Ruda Paradigm
I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that actually debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well. I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory. Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.
Dipali Sawhney Paradigm
Alexandria Snyders Dykeman Paradigm
Hijoo Son Paradigm
I am a history teacher for the past 20 years, but most recently at Phillips Andover Academy. I have a Ph.D in History but I do not have formal experience judging LD so I would not prefer speed. So please keep it concise, precise, and comprehensive (K's or theory).
Jacob Thomas Paradigm
I judge a fair number of circuit tournaments but I'm not up on the latest literature (k or otherwise) and I'm certainly not the judge you want if you depend on hyper-technical debate.
With that being said, I'm fairly good with speed, but add me to the email chain.
I try to be tab - I'll analyze what you read to the best of my ability.
Here are some things you ought to know:
I tend not to vote off spikes or any type of paragraph theory.
I have no idea what "comes first" in a round. Make sure you offer weighing. Otherwise, it could be a coin flip.
While I will read all cards, I won't interpret them. It is up to you to tell me why your opponent misuses or super-charges a card.
I don't mind T/Theory, especially when warranted, but I'm not a huge fan of theory for offense. I will try to stay tab on it, but you should be aware of my predisposition. I tend to buy fairness arguments more than education arguments, which I find to be a wash.
I'm not a huge fan of mind-shift change alts, mostly because I tend not to understand them. You can run it, and I will engage with it, but I'm not that smart.
Since I'm not that smart, offer clear voters and weighing.
I don't care if you stand, sit, or do handstands. Actually, I might give you higher speaks if you can deliver a speech from the handstand position.
I really don't like people taking a long time getting a file together to email it. I'm reasonable about it, but you ought to be reasonable as well.
I will dock your speaks if you're a jerk. This has a low threshold - go out of your way to be nice.
I don't like people who shout over their opponents in CX. You should try to control the cross, but don't depend on volume to do it.
I don't have a set view on disclosure. I will evaluate the arguments you make, for and against.
I don't know if I have anything that I default to - take that for what it's worth.
my email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Nancy Warn Paradigm
Reed Weiler Paradigm
Hey, I'm Reed. I did LD for four years at Lexington High School ('14-'18), went to TOC my junior and senior years, and reached elims at a bunch of bid tournaments & round robins along the way. I taught at NSD flagship over the summer and currently attend American University.
I don't want to waste your time with a huge, comprehensive explanation of every opinion I have regarding debate rounds, so if it helps, I try to model my judging after people like Sam Azbel, Jack Wareham, and Kaushal Balagurusamy.
I'll try my best to be tabula rasa and will evaluate pretty much any argument as long as it is properly warranted and implicated, with the exception of arguments that are actively exclusionary/racist/homophobic/ableist/etc.
I primarily debated policy and theory my senior year, but also read a good amount of phil and K positions throughout my career. That being said, I don't think my preferences as a debater carry over into my preferences as a judge. I'll be just as happy evaluating a dense deleuze v. kant debate as I will be judging plan v. counterplan debates. Regardless of the content of your positions, all I really care about is whether you can execute your arguments well, demonstrate strategic vision, and explain things in a clear & understandable way.
Things that will get you higher speaker points:
-persuasive abuse stories on theory
-good ev comparison
-genuine clash in framework debates
-smart/tricky LARP strategies
-demonstration of topic knowledge
*note: I have recently decided that I will not make a decision that procedurally excludes any of the 5 LD speeches. What this means is if you ask me to "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc/1ar/2nr", i will most likely ignore it, as I've found that doing so would create an incredibly arbitrary decision procedure that I don't feel would benefit anyone in the way they are hoping.
Do your best, have fun, and please ask questions if you have them. I am always willing to discuss my reason for decision/give comments after the round. If you feel the need to ask me anything before the round, shoot me an email: email@example.com
Devin Wells Paradigm
Logan Wells Paradigm
Frank Wu Paradigm
william Yee Paradigm
Patty Zhang Paradigm
Boyang Zhou Paradigm
Eric Zhu Paradigm
I'm pretty tab (I'll judge anything you read). Note: My political views are very moderate, so do not read extremely left lit in front of me (goes with out saying far right lit is also bad, probably worse).
Ks - Many of them are not well warranted and unconvincing, so use theory in those cases.
DAs - not much to say here, stats are nice.
CPs - serverance perms are annoying, so use theory.
Theory - Be strategic with it, you can read "friv" theory as long as I see a strategic value to it (could just be layering)
30 - really good
29 - really good, but something happened
28 - nice
27 - eh
26 - ehhh, something mildly annoying ie: making me listen to a million Ks.
25 - ehhhhhhhh, you did something wrong ie: made me listen to something racist
24 - you annoyed me