Tabroom.com

Lexington Winter Invitational

2022 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Reshma Abraham Walpole High School 8 rounds None

Ariv Ahuja Lexington HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Ariv Ahuja (He/Him). I'm a fourth-year senior debater for Lexington High school. I compete on the national and local debate circuits.

Email: 23stu077@lexingtonma.org

Novices

You are responsible to time your and your opponent's speeches.

Give me an off-time road map before your speeches.

Arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact. Implicate all your arguments and why they matter.

I'm cool with speed if your opponent is cool with it. Just make sure you're speaking clearly.

In your final speeches make sure you weigh and collapse. Think about the round in terms of offense and defense. Also, try to clearly frame the round towards the end - tell me why you won.

Be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc.

Preferably don't read stuff you don't understand.

I strongly discourage reading Ks/Theory/Tricks etc. against novices. If it's a trick or theory shell that is clearly explained I might vote on it, but my threshold for responses on these will be pretty low.

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.

I will disclose the ballot and speaks if you ask and the tournament allows.

In short, I will evaluate whatever arguments are in the round with an open mind. Although I might not be familiar with the Phil or Kritikal literature you running so do your best to explain it. I recommend just reading what your comfortable with.

The quick prefs are in terms of how good I am at evaluating those arguments

Quick Prefs:

Theory - 1

I read a lot of disclosure and ran all sorts of theory arguments, I think friv is ok but it's obviously harder to win.

Trix - 1

I also read a decent amount of these. Make sure there warranted and extended and I'll probably vote on it.

Policy - 1

Debated a lot of policy, so I am pretty familiar with these.

Phil - 3

I probably won't understand much other than Kant, although I'll try my best.

K - 3

I read a couple of K's the ones I'm most comfortable with are Abelism and Physco. I also understand the generic K's, Set Col, Security, Afropess etc.

Speaks

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.

Langdon Allen Needham High School None

Marina Aptekman Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 8 rounds

Ahmed Babaeer Lexington HS 8 rounds

Vedansh Chauhan Princeton

Joleen Chen The Bronx High School Of Science None

Kathryn DeBois Harrison

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. :)

Paul Ferraro Boston Latin School 8 rounds

Mia Ruth Frishberg Scarsdale High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 17, 2022 at 8:49 AM EDT

TL;DR: run what you're best at! if you just give me clear reasons as to why you deserve the ballot, I'll be happy voting for you! that being said, i'd rather you run a lay case that you understand than some dense tricky phil that you don't understand.

NLD AND JVLD

I don't really think that spreading belongs in NLD and JVLD. It's often exclusionary as debaters in these categories are often inexperienced. I'll ask that you not share your case with me as you should be speaking at a speed that I can understand without reading. I don't flow CX and I won't care about it unless you make me care about it in your speech. Please time yourself xo

Quick Prefs:

Phil: 1 (+.5 speaks if you read something i've never seen before and actually understand it)

Tricks: 1-2 (i'm not the best flower so if you're reading dense tricks i may not be the best judge)

Theory/T: 1-3 (if you're gonna spread through your interps maybe refrain)

Lay/Trad: 2

LARP: 3-4

Identity politics: 4

Pomo: 5

Full paradigm:

Hi! I'm Mia Frishberg

About me: As a debater, I mainly run tricks and phil. I also like theory and have dabbled in idpol (fem killjoy)

things that make me happy: clear ballot stories, weighing, clash, and meme cases

things that make me sad: spreading on/being mean to novices, and LARP v LARP (u can run it but i'll be sad)

And as for my defaults(feel free to change my mind!):

theory is competing interps, drop the argument, no rvi

T/theory> k> substance

presumption affirms

permissibility negates

Specifics:

Phil: As a debater, I dont have one specific favorite phil really. I enjoy butler, kant, hobbes, intuitionism and ethical egoism but can evaluate most philosophies if not all. I don't looove when ppl read some phil ac as a time suck and drop it for 1ar theory BUT i'll evaluate it. And, PLEASE don't run some random phil that you don't understand. Otherwise, have fun with ur phil! i would enjoy a nice, happy phil v. phil round.

Tricks: I will vote off of an apriori if you tell me why it matters. I have experience with blippy tricks and will be happy to vote for them but i HATE blippy spike extensions like "extend the warrant" or extempted spikes in the AC so pls avoid that. Otherwise, i'm not gonna tank your speaks if u fairly win. (THAT DOESNT MEAN 20 APRIORIS IN FRONT OF A NOVICE)

Theory: See my defaults above. That being said, I'm fine evaluating friv theory. AFC is fun and i like it. Like i said in the beginning, i don't like ppl reading phil in the ac just to drop it and read 1ar theory. I'll evaluate it, but again, it makes me sad.

Lay/Trad: Pretty straight forward. If this is what you feel most comfortable doing, i'll evaluate it the same way as anything else. I'd appreciate a claim-warrant-impact structure and clear impact calculus under your framing. Happy debating!

LARP: I dislike this sometimes. Larpers read many cards very fast which makes me a bit sad. Obviously, I'll evaluate this the same way as anything else. You're not gonna win the round with your DA/CP/Plan/etc. if you don't win util/xtinction first tho.

Ks: I enjoy topicality but non-T is fine. I feel like a broken record here but i will evaluate anything. I'm def not the best person for super dense pomo or high theory but if u give me a clear ballot story, go ahead. As for idpol, my threshold for responses may be a bit low so run this if you're confident.

And, good for you for finishing my paradigm. To show that you've finished this, tell me your favorite color before the round starts and i'll give you +0.2 if u do it before your opponent.

Aashna Gandhi Lexington HS

Jeremy Gold Needham High School

Chetan Hertzig Harrison

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:04 PM EDT

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Cyrus Jackson Harrison

Sarika Kakkar Walpole High School 8 rounds None

Ipek Kendircioglu Lexington HS None

Aden Levenson Walpole High School

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 9:54 AM EDT

Hi debaters! I am currently a first-year at the University of Virginia, and was an Academic All-American through NSDA, had four years of debate experience at Walpole High School, three of those years as the President of the team. I primarily focused in LD, but went to Nationals as a member of the New England WSD team in my Senior year. Debate was a huge part of my life in high school, and I hope to share the same enthusiasm with you in round! Now enough about me living in the past, let's move on to reason why you are reading this!

Here are some more general comments applicable to all styles of debate:

The most important thing is to make sure everyone feels accepted in round and that they can express themselves without feeling attacked by the other side. When one side feels attacked, we lose this sense of the educative setting we are striving to maintain. That is to say do not attack your opponent(s) directly, please stick to the arguments at hand, and watch what you say.
Please have fun! I know from personal experience that for some this academic sport is arguably the most stressful experience you will experience in your life, but I do not want you to feel in this round that your life depends on getting a victory. If you are stressed you will have a harder time presenting your arguments in full, so do not be afraid to take a second to relax before speaking. Here is a great article I recommend you take a look at if public speaking is something you are trying to work on (Bravo in advance for the effort! Not many people can do what you're doing, so keep it up!): https://hbr.org/2015/08/6-ways-to-reduce-the-stress-of-presenting
For the FAQ of speed: I am the kind of person who listens to videos at 2x speed while reading along, so I can handle a pretty fast pace. That is to say that I am not impervious to making mistakes if I am processing the information to fast. I would say as long as you are still able to annunciate every idea in full and do not get carried away with the breathing technique associated with spreading, your speed should be fine. Just remember that I am human and I will make mistakes the faster you are, I am warning you now.
I will be keeping track of time; however, I will give a 15 second cushion before cutting off a debater by saying "Time!" (I apologize in advance if it comes off aggressive I just want to make sure I maintain order and fairness in the round). I myself like to say a lot of words and run-on sentences, so as long as if you use the 15 seconds to finish the thought you are trying to make I will not ding you for that.
I am neither strictly a tech nor truth judge. I say this in an attempt to eliminate any preconceived bias on how to win me over as a judge. I want to hear your authentic voices as best as possible (I mean, this is debate in all) and see you engaged in thought-provoking discussion about the resolution at hand. That is how you will win me over. I will value debaters demonstrating technique to edge their opponent, but I will also value debaters who demonstrate very well curated evidence that can be demonstrated by the debater as repeatable.
If there is an email chain, I would like to be included. You can use the following email: amklevenson@comcast.net

For the LD Crowd:

Theory: I was a local circuit kid most of my time in debate, so I am not well-versed in running/debating this area of debate myself; however, that is not to say that I do not know how it functions. I will say this: if you run theory, make sure it is articulated well and it is actually framed as a serious infraction to the normative processes of a typical debate round. Simply put, I will be upset if you run something like belt or shoe theory.
K's: Again, not well-versed in running these myself, but am more comfortable with these than theory. Again, make sure if you runs a K that the links are outlined and defended as best you can. Most importantly, make sure its topical and relevant to the resolution.
Definitions: I feel that this is the most underutilized part to any debate round. If you can provide definitions that can frame the round in favor of your side and carry them through throughout the entire round, you will definitely be rewarded by me!
Framework: As you know, this is the most important part of the round, so make sure that you can articulate it as best you can and always make connections throughout.
Contentions: I addressed this earlier in my tech v. truth section above, but just remember to connect everything back to framework and make sure the argument flows.
Rebuttals/Weighing: Try your best to weigh in your rebuttals, but you will not win or lose a round just for weighing, and make sure to clash. You will win rebuttals by winning clash with cards.

For the PF Crowd:

I am not well-versed in the minutiae of PF debate, so treat me as a typical lay parent judge, walking me through the steps of the round and articulating clearly what to care about and why. That is the best advice I can give to you as of now to try and win me over, so if you follow this guideline I will have a higher likelihood of voting for your side.

Amy Ma Lexington HS

Anuka Manghwani Lexington HS

Lavanya Manoharan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Carlo Mattoni Stuyvesant High School

Graciela Mohamedi Brookline High School 8 rounds

Betsy Mukkuzhi Walpole High School 8 rounds

Elizabeth Murno Harrison

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 10:32 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Murno, I use she/her pronouns

I debated LD for 4 years at Harrison High School and I teach at NSD. I debated natcir but i love trad :)

My email is Lizzie.murno@gmail.com

If you are able to, please do not read util in front me. If you only read util, please strike me. I hate it. I really don't want to hear about how I am going to die regardless of if we affirm or negate. I have been hearing that extinction will happen in debate for 6 years now and I really do not want to hear it anymore. Obviously if you only have access to util because you are a small team or cut all your own prep I will not hold it against you, but if you are able to read a more nuanced argument then please do because I am tired or pummer.

Time yourself please I HATE cutting people off but I will not flow any args made after the timer. Finish your sentence but be reasonable.

Tech and Truth? I will default to whoever is winning the argument, even if I don't agree with it or think it's false it's not up to me if it was dropped. HOWEVER, If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate the debate one, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. This also makes me inclined to actually read your evidence, especially when it's a hard decision to make. However, DO NOT RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE.

Prefs

Ks - 1

Non-T performance - 1

Soft Left K/K aff - 1

Theory - 2/3

Phil - 4/5

LARP - 5/6

Tricks - Strike

Even though I was a K debater, do not run it in front of me just because of that - if you don't know it, I won't like it. I read mostly performance Ks, set col, fem Ks, and cap Ks.

If you are reading a K on the neg against a util aff. DONT ASSUME I WILL JUST REJECT UTIL. You need to read a ROB and/or ROJ and tell me why it comes before util and why util is bad. Do not get mad at me for voting for a bad util aff over a good K if you didnt do the work to tell me why your discussion comes first when your opponent tells me why util comes first.

If you have me and aren't a K debater I would love it if you had some soft left K aff (basically implementation of the resolution but impact to structural violence, or a ROB about equality. Just. Not. Util.)

Larp

Larp can be done well, but I will just never get on the Util bandwagon - if you win it I'll vote on it, but I certainly will not be happy.

I will not default to util. Read a framework (I have seen this way too many times).

T/Theory

I read Ks but that doesn't mean that no K is abusive. Give me a good TVA, one that is specific to the K (if you don't have one because they didn't disclose, tell me that). Theory can be really interesting to me if you know what you are doing and I enjoy a good extension of each part.

T against non T affs should be more nuanced. I generally prefer topic theory over T-FW, and I think that if you are reading T-FW there should be a good TVA with a solvency advocate. I also think that you should though some impact turns/critical reasons being non t is bad. in the shell.

Disclosure, PICs bad, condo, rob spec, etc - I think that these arguments need to have a clear abuse story. If you are saying "I can't engage" but are clearly engaging you need to tell me "theory is about norm setting, not what you do it's what you justify". On the other hand, I do appreciate theory and t as an out in a very challenging round substantively.

Phil

I am a philosophy major which means that if you read bad philosophy to me (i.e. you are unable to analytically justify your fw and rely on cards that make no sense) then I will definitely vote you down. I do not understand the way that a lot of people read phil in LD because you don't have a set of premises and a conclusion.

For Novice LD:

- Novice debate is really challenging in the beginning so don't worry! I will try to help as much as a can with my reason for decision (RFD). Ask me any questions you have after the round.

- Feel free to run any argument you are comfortable with as long as it is explained, links to the winning framework, etc, I will probably vote for it.

- Novice rounds are usually messy (It is okay, you are new!), just try to explain all of your arguments, why that means you win, and how you link to the winning framework.

- I want clear voting issues at the end or during your speech.

- I want some big picture arguments explaining what the neg/aff world's would look like (especially in util debates.)

-Overall, have fun with it and try your best!

Geeta Namdhari San Mateo High

Mmesoma Nwosu Newark Science 8 rounds

Gallo Patel Stuyvesant High School

Last changed on Thu May 9, 2024 at 11:11 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.

Annika Ruda Walpole High School 8 rounds

Tammie Ruda Walpole High School 8 rounds

Atul Sharma Westford Academy None

Caroline Shi Scarsdale High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 16, 2022 at 7:17 AM EDT

SHS' 22

email: caroline3shi@gmail.com

facebook: Caroline Shi

Hi! I'm Caroline, I debate for Scarsdale High School, primarily on the national circuit. If you have any questions before the round, email or message me on FB

for novice debate:

[1] WEIGH!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!

[2] If you wish to bring progressive debate into the round, please make sure your opponent is okay with it beforehand. That being said, don't just read progressive arguments for the ballot if you don't understand them. I will be very sad, and your speaks will reflect that

general:

I'm not the best at flowing, and this whole online thing makes it a bit harder, so please be clear and slow down on taglines/interps

Extensions need warrants, but if your opponent did not spend that much time on your argument/dropped it, you do not need to spend that much time extending it

Tech > truth, but there needs to be a warrant. Run what you want*; I will try to be as non-interventionist as possible/evaluate your arguments to the best of my ability, except for a few cases that I will list below:

- if something is marked as an independent voter, but not warranted as to why it is an independent voter/in general in the speech it is introduced, I probably will not evaluate it how you want me to (as in, I will not vote on it)

- I won't vote on personal attacks based on out of round incidents such as a person's clothing, appearance, mannerisms, etc., with the exception of disclosure w/ screenshots

- don't cheat/miscut evidence

if no arguments are made for or against these, here are my defaults (although I will be pretty sad if I have to use them):

- fairness and education are voters

- comparative worlds

- DTA, reasonability, no RVIs on theory

- DTD, competing interps, no RVIs on T

- presumption/permissibility negate

- 1ar theory legit

*i'm fine with most arguments, but I would highly recommend against reading tricks in front of me (strike or pref low), since I do not believe I am well-equipped to judge them. If you still decide to read tricks in front of me after reading this, don't be sketchy, go slow, and at least hint at its application in the first speech it's introduced in.

*LARP with caution: I'm probably fine to judge basic DA/CP/plan AFF strats, but I'm not familiar with advanced LARP jargon/super complicated LARP strats.

addendum: please adapt to novice/traditional debaters as best as you can. your speaks will thank you for this :)

note: if you felt uncomfortable in the round because of something I did/your opponent did, please contact me after the round

Mahad Sohail Lexington HS

Login to Tabroom

Lexington Winter Invitational

2022 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Novice LD Paradigm List

Judges