Rev D Stanley Lord Tournament
2024 — Bridgeport, CT/US
Open Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideExperience: I'm a student at Yale who did LD for 4 years in high school. I primarily competed on the local level, and at a few circuit tournaments. I also have competed in Public Forum for a year. I have judged several rounds on my local circuit in Florida, and at the 2022 Yale Invitational.
PF/Parli Paradigm:
Speed: Keep it reasonable. Decently faster than conversational speed is ok, but everything should be clear.
Weighing: Do it, especially at the end. I don't like voting on things you decline to mention in the final speeches.
Speaks: I generally start at a 28.3. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.25-0.5.
Brand new arguments in final speeches will be ignored and ding your speaks.
Be kind to your opponent. We can all tell when you are not.
Do not run racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. arguments.
LD Paradigm:
Arguments I like: Unless otherwise mentioned in my next section, I’m fine with pretty much any arguments you want to run. I’m most familiar with Policy, CPs, DAs, and more traditional arguments, but have also run Phil, Ks and theory in several rounds. Just make sure you explain your points clearly, and extend your arguments across speeches. Be sure to collapse and weigh in your last speech.
I don’t like: Blippy arguments and tricks. Dense arguments that neither I nor your opponent understands due to your intentional obfuscation. Being mean to your opponent (e.g. rudeness, or spreading out an obvious novice) will likely result in a low speak win at best. Clearly racist, xenophobic, etc. arguments will be a loss. Meme cases are allowed, but my threshold for your opponent responding to them is fairly low, unless both debaters decide to run meme cases.
Speed: I’m pretty comfortable with speed for all but the fastest debaters IRL. If the debate is on zoom, you might want to consider some combination of speaking slower than normal, signposting well, or sending the doc. If your internet is questionable at times, I strongly encourage you to record with your phone.
Email Chain: talk to me before the round starts if you will be spreading.
Speaks: I generally average a 28.5. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.2-0.5.
debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld
few must-know notes:
- add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
- don't miscut evidence.
- warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).
few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful
- I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
- extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
- I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
- default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
- uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
- im fluent in progressive argumentation. update: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.
things that get you really good speaks
- analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
- keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
- judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
- keeping the round running on time.
if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.
I am a high school debater who has been debating all through middle school. Mostly prep-ahead/extemp parli & some modified LD.
An attempt at refuting is better than no refuting
I can follow a faster speaking pace, but speaking clearly and thoughtfully are more important. Be comfortable - even if it means your speaking is slower
Don't worry too much about stuttering, etc. Getting your point across is more important
Impacts + weighing!
Be calm and try your best! Debate can be equal parts enjoyable and stressful, but remember it is another learning opportunity regardless of the outcome.
Hi! I'm Felix (he/him), and I debated PF at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I got to octas at the TOC and top-spoke Harvard, Lexington, and Bronx. Now I debate APDA and BP for Yale.
Add felix.j.leonhardt@gmail.com to the email chain.
Parli paradigm:
Treat me like any other parli judge. Don't make new arguments or responses in your last speech -- use this speech to collapse on an argument and explain why it wins the round.
PF paradigm:
I will vote off the flow (tech>truth, tabula rasa), unless one team is rude/offensive, in which case that team will lose.
I feel comfortable evaluating almost all arguments that I have come across in PF, but I have significantly more experience with topical debates. This means that I am more likely to make a good decision in topical rounds, and it means that I will be more receptive to arguments about why topical debates are good.
No matter what kind of argument you decide to read, here are my requirements.
1. Be nice!
2. With the exception of arguments made in first constructive, if any argument (weighing, defense, turns, etc.) isn't responded to in the next speech, it is conceded. This means second rebuttal needs to frontline.
3. Nothing is sticky; first summary needs defense if you want it to be on my ballot.
4. You need to extend your arguments in summary and final focus.
5. Debate is an educational activity, so fairness is very important to me. As such, I won't evaluate arguments that I believe are made to win the ballot in a way that your opponents can't interact with. This includes theory against novices and tricks.
Below is some additional advice. While nothing below is required, it will probably help you win, and it will definitely help you get better speaker points.
1. You almost always need weighing to win. Don't explain why your impact is large or probable, explain why your impact is larger or more probable than the other team's impact. This goes for any type of round -- substance, theory, K, or other.
2. Teams don't read as many analytics as they should. Don't just read your blocks; explain to me why your opponents' argument is wrong.
3. For arguments about structural violence, framing is good. It should come early in the round.
4. I dislike the new trend of reading six case arguments and going for the one that's undercovered. I don't think you leave yourself enough time to fully explain a link chain for each argument, and by omitting parts of the link chain, I think you make it harder for your opponents to respond. If you do this, I will consider the other team's pointing out the omission (of lack of development) of a certain part of the link chain as sufficient defense.
5. Ask me questions after the round. Learning from both wins and losses is how to get better at debate.
Most importantly, have fun! I love debate and I want everyone to love it.
I coach with DebateDrills -- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy.
Hello! I'm Henry (He/Him), and I look forward to judging your round. I debated PF for four years on the national circuit.
-
I'm a pretty standard flow judge.
-
I'm a sucker for really good weighing that is comparative and well-implicated. Blippy, non-comparative weighing, on the other hand, won't score you any points with me. Start weighing as early in the round as possible.
-
Please signpost.
-
Please extend stuff in summary + FF. I'm not a stickler for super detailed extensions, just be sure to re-explain the argument.
- Turns/1st rebuttal offense should be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.
-
I don’t care about cross.
- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks, especially if you make me laugh.
-
I have some experience debating/judging theory rounds, but not much experience with other kinds of prog args.
-
Be respectful!
If you have questions about my paradigm or anything else, I'll be happy to answer them before the round starts. Good luck, and I'm excited for a great round!
Hello!!
General Stuff:
1. Respect others; any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop
2. Time yourself. I will also do it too, but it makes it way easier for me if you do it yourself
3. Do NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand what you are saying I won't flow
4. Tell me where you are on your flow when you give your speech
5. Use up all of your speech time if you can!! You know more than you think, and if all else fails just explain your case
Rebuttals
1. Quality > Quantity; I prefer responses that are explained, especially with how it interacts with the case
Summary
1. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything
3. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.
4. A full extension extends the warrants and impacts. My least favorite thing to do is vote for a team that doesn't have warrants, so make sure to point it out if they don't
Final Focus
1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.
2. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact.
Most importantly, HAVE FUN
My email is sophiali00112@gmail.com. Email me any questions or add me to the email chain ☺️
tl;dr former PF debater treat me as a flay judge
Email: oliverlin2004@gmail.com
Debated Public Forum at St. John's School. Did some Worlds as a senior.
Speed is fine as long as you maintain clarity. Speech docs are preferred, but I will begin to dock speaks if I need to refer to it multiple times.
I don't flow cross and won't call cards on my own. If you want me to do either, put it in a speech.
I don't mind if you want to postround as long as we have time.
Theory
I'll try to evaluate it tab but I will drop the shell instead of any reasonability stuff.
Kritik
Never ran it. Never hit it. Run at your own risk.
Substance
Tech > Truth. No sticky anything. Please extend and weigh.
Turns should be clearly implicated as they are delivered. A new impact in final focus or second summary is a new argument.
Don't be a jerk in round. I will start by docking speaks, but I will drop you for unacceptable behavior (any -isms, bullying, threats). Please be civil.
Worlds
Same thing as PF except no speech docs and obviously no progressive stuff. I think reading a principle argument is almost always strategic and I like to hear them.
Speech
Zero experience here. As lay as it gets.
East Coast HS debater
Nothing too crazy here - don't be offensive or violate debate ethics (no transphobic, sexist, racist, etc. arguments). Explain quality of impacts vs. quantity. I will vote a contention with the greatest magnitude of impact vs. 25 baseless claims. Be sure to signpost and speak clearly. If you speed too aggressively I will not be able to catch everything on the flow and the opponents will have a harder time understanding as well. Generally quality of debate will decrease too. I am fine with theory as long as your arguments make sense and are concise.
Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylarrwang@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.
Notes for 12/2 -I'm not familiar with this topic, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating!
General:
- Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on
- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing
- Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.
This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this
- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!
- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted.
- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.
More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."
- I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to Ks than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory)
- Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read.
Back half specifics:
- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted
- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus
- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary
- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks
Speaks:
- I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.
- avg is 28
- will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior
Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.