For email chain or questions: lga251@students.needham.k12.ma.us

(Definitely share your case with me if you plan to spread, I am used to it but I like to follow along visually in these scenarios to ensure I don´t miss anything)

Background: I am a Junior in high school with a lot of experience in Lincoln Douglas and World Schools Debate.

For beginners:

1. try not to stress! This is solely a fun learning experience and as your judge it’s my job to help you understand how to improve.
2. please make sure you speak loudly and clearly
3. try to stay organized
4. have fun

More detail:

I believe a great case cannot win without a strong rebuttal. I need to see you prove your case throughout your speeches as well as disprove your opponents. I feel a strong debater is one who provides ample evidence in their rebuttal to disprove their opponent, debaters who do this will receive higher speaker points and are more likely to properly disprove their opponents arguments. I appreciate when debaters say their evidence ( last name and date) when referring to a piece of evidence through all speeches so it is clear where the evidence originates from in the round. Lastly, I enjoy a line by line analysis, off time road maps, as well as voting issues.

Hello, I am Jouseline Alvarez I attend Harrison High School and I quite enjoy the formatting. I debated both my freshman and sophomore year and I am now a junior. Below are my personal opinions and how I look at the round however I will evaluate any argument that has a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Another personal belief is that debate is not a game, but an educational space for people to yes compete but also express themselves. Be respectful if anything and add me to the email chain: jouselinealvarez@gmail.com

Shortcut:

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 2

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

White Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring

Ways to make the round good --> good speaks!

1. Clashing with your opponent
2. Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
3. Being clear
4. Time yourself
5. Making the round a little fun and silly

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is awesome and probably my favorite form of debate. However, do not just read this because I like it if you don't know your stuff because you might get roasted...

Trad: I prefer trad a lot of styles of debate. If this is what you feel the most comfortable with then go ahead. Although it can get quite boring it might be really fun if debaters use more creative arguments than just the same arguments everyone reads.

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff Phil is probably something I would not be great at evaluating, and a lot of debaters really don't explain their arguments quite enough for me to feel comfortable voting on this. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory... If there is a real violation then go ahead! I support it fully.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is not it.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I'll vote for any argument made against them almost immediately, if your opponent reads one please take advantage of the easy W and roast them. If tricks "magically" manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them. I say we leave tricks to magicians.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my West Coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose to be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story! Also keep in mind the only PF I have ever judged is middle schoolers.

As a brief underview:

• You get good speaks by being clear and respectful while also demonstrating a clear understanding of what has happened in round
• You will get low speaks and perhaps dropped if you are any type of offensive, I have a low tolerance. Obviously, mistakes are alright we all learn!
• Credits to Charles for the stolen paradigm

Hello my name is Muthu. This is my first time judging so bear with me.

Background

I am a Data Scientist in a Government consulting company and have a master's in Data Science.

Preferences

Since it's my first time I would prefer if you speak not too fast speech but if you must, I can try to understand but prefer medium speed so I can comprehend what you are saying take notes. Make sure I can understand your ideas and that they are convincing.

I would prefer strong convincing arguments over any fancy language. I am looking for confidence over aggression and unnecessary arguments, respect each other.

Good luck!

Hello! I am a parent judge with experience judging LD at few tournaments . I appreciate this opportunity and believe that debate is a place that should be a site of education and learning.

As a parent judge, I expect you to keep the debate clear and make it simple for me to follow. Please use signposting.

Emphasize your contentions, their importance in the round, and why they ultimately win over those of your opponent.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow (i.e. if you speak fast/spread, I will not be able to understand which means I won't have the means to make the correct judgement).

Notes to consider:

I don't have experience with the circuit side of debate, so please keep the debate traditional.

Specify your contentions clearly, direct me through your flow. During the debate, make sure to clearly state if you are moving on the neg/aff side of the flow.

Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

I like instructions from the debater on how to piece together the debate

I give good speaker points if you are reasonably well prepared and speak clearly and eloquently.

Don't be rude to your opponent(s).

Good luck and have fun!

Hi there! My name is Vicki Childs and I am the mom of two LD debaters - one novice and one JV.

I have judged novice LD for two years now. I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread - I'm not quite ready for that yet! Please keep debate jargon and theory to a minimum, and finally please be respectful to everyone in the room.

Hi!!

I'm Sam, a junior at Lexington High School in Mass. I've been debating since freshman year, with 2 years in varsity.

Please add me to the email chain 25stu472@lexingtonma.org

General rules for me:

If you are clearly racist, homophobic, etc, to the point where it disrupts the round you will be dropped.

If you are just straight up super rude I'll probs just tank your speaks.

Be nice to everyone and your speaks go up!

I will always try to have 0 bias, and evaluate every argument to the best of my ability.

For Novices:

You guys are just learning the activity, so please focus on the simple things like weighing, extensions, and argument interactions. If you are clearly a lot better than your opponent please be kind. Hopefully these will be super educational rounds, but please please please don't make me have to make arguments for you. Even in novice rounds, dropped arguments are conceded arguments.

For JV:

In general, JV tournaments have pools of debaters with a massive range of experience. If you are running super progressive arguments against someone who has never seen a K before, please keep that in mind and don't be rude.

If you do choose to run progressive arguments in JV that is still fine, but I have a higher threshold for them given that frequently the JVers who are running them don't understand their own arguments. Given that, I will vote on anything but "eval after the ..." in a JV round because it is supposed to be prep for the circuit.

Quick prefs:

tech>truth

Theory -- 1

Policy -- 1

Phil -- 3

Ks -- 2

Tricks -- Don't run if you're in JV they're not educational for you yet and they tend to be butchered <3

Theory:

I like frivolous theory, but in JV it can be somewhat problematic so just be careful and smart about who your running it against.

Disclo is valid, but if you beat someone on open source or rr or something based on the wiki bc they have never heard of it before I think you should explain to them how to use it after the round.

Defaults:

Education and fairness are equal, just don't spit out the same warrants with 0 interaction every time or I default to whichever one makes the theory debate more resolvable.

Comp. Interps>Rznability

DTD>DTA

No RVIs>RVIs, BUT I would say I'm wayyy more willing to vote on RVIs than the average person, I love going for them and if you prove your model of debate is better for the space and eval under norm setting you will win RVIs for me almost every time.

Ks:

I've mostly run basic Ks like setcol, disability, cap, etc. If you're reading smt super dense or random that's fine just understand It PLS.

T-FW>non T K affs, non-t k affs will be an uphill battle for you to win for me tbh.

Phil:

Not v experienced in this except for util and Kant.

Given that, I think I can understand these args p well so just warrant things well and weigh.

Policy:

Please just make your arguments interact.

In JV this tends to be the default and I'm fine with that, just pls make your arguments warranted.

I'm totally chill wt. analytics instead of carded evidence, most of the time if it's explained properly in JV and Novice debates this is better anyways.

Just weigh under your fw and clarify the round for me.

My name is Tasneem (she/her), I am a 4th year debater with experience in both PF and LD. email: tyghadiali@gmail.com

First, have fun! Debate is for learning and meant to be enjoyable! I would love it if you read creative and interesting arguments. Don't stress!

I want CLEAR arguments. If you can't explain it in your own words, don't read it.

Most important to me is comparison: you must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponent's!! Write my RFD in your last speech. For novices, I like hearing

• worlds comparison: weigh the aff world to the neg world and what happens in each
• a list of voters highlighting key issues of the round / why you win this round
• good signposting
• good rhetoric and speech skills
• demonstrating deep topic knowledge -> this is really important to me, make sure you know your case in & out

I will vote off the flow. Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh.

I do not flow cross but I listen. If something important happens in cross, tell me in your next speech and I'll flow it. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep.

Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will be an auto loss.

Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. But, if I can’t flow the speech, I will probably dock speaker points.

Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

Feel free to ask questions after the round, I love answering them.

My name is Hannah(she/her) and I’m a 4th year LD debater at Lexington High School. I compete on the local and national circuit.

email: guohannah67@gmail.com

Novice:

-Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will likely be an auto loss.

-Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. I will also give reminders but if I can’t flow the speech, I will dock speaker points. Try to signpost often so I can keep track of your arguments.

**If you cannot understand the opponent because of speed, you may tell them to slow down during the speech.

-Spend time on the framework debate! I will usually evaluate it first.

-Make sure to weigh your impacts and explain why one is more important than the other.

-Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

-Remember to give voters in your final speeches and tell me why you’re winning the round.

-Have fun!

I have judged speech events for many years but am new to judging LD. I prefer not to disclose at the end of rounds and prefer minimal "judge instruction." I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, please don't spread, and keep debate jargon to a minimum. I prefer trad rounds at this point. Off-timer roadmaps are okay. Please be respectful to one another!

Hi! I'm Lakshika (she/her), a junior at Acton-Boxborough. This is my 3rd year doing LD debate.

Novice specifics:

1. Being organized, giving off-time roadmaps and signposting is very helpful
2. Use CX well, make sure you're asking effective questions and bring it up later in your speeches
3. Make sure you weigh and give voters as well as extending throughout speeches. Clearly telling me why is should be voting for you makes my job easier

Feel free to email me at 25kamalaganeshl@abschools.org

Update for 2023: College Junior

Formerly Debated as Devin Kyser

Currently go by Drixxon Kyzar. Both Dev & Drixx are fine, I really don't mind.

email chain: davk2300@gmail.com

Paradigm:

If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear.

Will vote on Kritiks and Theory Shells as long as you explain them well. Not a very big fan of tricks, but I won't vote you down for it.

Please keep things cordial and respectful. I understand that Debates can get very intense, but it's important to attack someone's case rather than their person.

Sign posting is highly valued, as it makes my job easier, and is appreciated when I see that your case and motives are organized.

2024 Revised Paradigm:

I'm a product of Newark Science. You can refer to my former coach's paradigm as a basis for how I'll judge.

Speed
Be clear. Pretend I don't have your doc. For most topics, you can spread as fast as you want.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, clear tags are extremely important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory is to make it make sense. I'm not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

UPDATE FOR PF AT JV FINALS: I have a limited understanding, so just try to explain why your stuff matters. Have fun!

Hello! I'm Ryan and I have been competing in LD for 2 years. I am well-versed in the flow of the round and the rules of LD and am looking forward to seeing some good rounds!

Here are a few things to note about me specifically:

I will generally evaluate traditional debate first, especially in the JV field. I believe in principle that traditional debate is generally how things should be done, but if you are effectively communicating your case to me and explaining coherently why you are winning the round, I will evaluate your argument fairly regardless of the format.

Tricks really won't work with me. All your opponent really has to do is tell me that it's abusive, and I'll drop your trick.

Non-topical K's will have a very hard time winning me over. In LD, you are asked to make a moral consideration of a question, and if you do not do so, it is my opinion that you have not fulfilled your role.

There are very few Theories that can win me over. Disclosure theory will only have impact for me if your opponent plans to spread and you can prove you reached out to them beforehand and they did not respond or refused to meet your interps.

Plans and Counterplans modify the topic you have been asked to produce an argument for and in my eyes are non-topical.

I will generally not read any documents you send me unless there is an accessibility issue. I would really prefer you not spread, since I am flowing only what you communicate to me as a speaker. Debate is an activity based in effective persuasive communication, and that's an important real-world skill, so persuade me!

I will buy almost any argument if it is backed by evidence (excluding any argument that is discriminatory, hateful etc.)

I will decide the round based mainly on impacts since impacts determine the heft of your argument outside of a vacuum. Your impacts rely on the evidence you advance in-round and the framework that wins, so I see it as an all-encompassing way to evaluate the round. Speaker points will be determined by the quality of delivery that is consistent in your speech and how well you can persuade me. The content of your speeches will not affect them.

My email for sharing evidence, should the need arise: rlansky@icloud.com

Background: Junior, 3rd Year High School LD Debater at Lexington High School.

Email: 25stu397@lexingtonma.org

Arguments:I am comfortable with any arguments. Just be clear on what you are running.

How to win:

1.) Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

2.) Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.

3.) Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.

4.) Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.

Speakers:

1.) Give clear off-time road maps so that both I am able to follow each argument on the flow. During the speech make sure to clearly state if you are moving on the neg/aff side of the flow. Try to go top to bottom and if you end up jumping from different arguments, just make sure what argument is being addressed.

2.) If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important words/sentences/paragraphs.

3.) Be nice and respectful.

4.) Be creative and logical with arguments. I like to see arguments that are addressed with basic logic and reasoning.

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions

Please Get tHe email cHain started before start time.

Staking the round on ev ethics Loser gets 26 Winner gets 29.2

Post-Rounding is Good

Update: -0.5 speaks if you say “Russia/China don’t commit human rights abuses”

I am a Junior from Lex and have debated on the National Circuit for Two Years. I mainly read policy arguments and some theory.

I'll disclose speaks unless if you ask not to

1 - Policy/Larp/Util, T/Theory, Trad

2 - Stock K's, Kant, Tricks

3 - Other Phil

4 - High Theory K's

lexingtonrldebate@gmail.com

This trend of not highlighting warrants in cards is not something I will go along with

All of these are not based on my personal opinions on certain arguments but rather my understanding of the argument.

Tech>Truth

If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote for it

I will drop you if you are bigoted in any way

I will drop you if you defend horrible leaders such as Assad, Putin, Xi, Gaddafi, etc. (It is fine if you say China Heg good, if it prevents extinction, but if you say "the uyghur genocide isn't real" or "Assad didn't actually use the chemical weapons")

Novice/Trad

I am a "tech" judge and will evaluate the round base don who is winning on the flow. Ethos will not count for me in determining the decision. Make sure to weigh under the winning framework and do not have a pointless framework debate if they are the same framework ("maximizing well-being" vs. "consequentialism"). Make sure to collapse.

I will give a 30 if you say "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc" and it is dropped by your opponent. I will stop flowing if it is dropped. However, I will give you an L 27 if you forget to extend it through every speech, since I won't have flowed the rest of the debate and that's on you.

Policy

This is the type of debate I do the most, and am most comfortable evaluating.

Most evidence in LD is really bad, you should point that out

That being said, you still have to win on a technical level. I think good technical debating can overcome any disparity in evidence quality.

Disad turns case isn't an offensive argument unless if you win uniqueness.

I'm not too experienced with in-depth competition debates.

I don't think new 2nr evidence is legitimate unless if they are directly responsive to the 1ar.

Topicality

I've read a policy-style T and answered it a lot, so I feel comfortable evaluating these debates

Make sure to actually read voters, this trend of not reading voters and paradigm issues is kind of stupid.

I am fine if you read Nebel T, though it probably isn't the most strategic argument.

Theory

I have read theory, especially a lot of disclosure theory, and it's pretty intuitive to understand. You can read any shell in front of me.

I am fine if you read friv theory.

You should disclose. Including round reports

K's

I haven't really read K's much but I've debated against K's a lot, and I understand how the debate works.

I understand the literature of stock k's like cap, security, setcol, pess k's, etc. High theory K's will need a lot of explanation.

I probably am subconsciously biased towards the policy side of larp v k debates, cuz i have mainly been on the larp side. That being said, if you are winning you will still win

I will vote for arguments that many in the debate community will disagree with. That includes arguments such as hegemony good as an impact turn, arguments for why alts would be unethical, etc.

I am a mainstream Liberal who thinks things like Hegemony and Capitalism are good. Winning on a technical level will go 1000x farther then trying to persuasively grandstand.

Phil

I really don't understand anything that well other then util or kant, but I'll probably b enable to understand it if you explain it well

Please implicate your arguments well and weigh especially for these debates.

Tricks

Make sure they have warrants - in the first speech they were read.

These are pretty easy to understand but if it's incoherent in the first speech and then explained in a later speech I'll probably give the other side leeway for new responses.

Trad

I will evaluate the round technically - I can evaluate trad rounds but I don't like the style of debate. If it's a tech vs trad round the tech debater will most likely win.

Speaks

I will not give higher speaks for arguments I like. Your speaks will solely reflect the quality of debating. I won't deduct speaks for reading tricks, but if you collapse on a dropped eval argument, that means your argument quality was not as good. However, if you extend and weigh between different tricks in a high quality manner you can still get high speaks (you should probably still extend other arguments even if eval is dropped for example).

Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm currently a junior at Bronx Science.

Pronouns: she/her

Please create an email chain or start a speechdrop: lins16@bxscience.edu

Things that will get you auto-dropped and/or tanked speaks:

• If you invalidate your opponent's experiences and/or you're homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist etc
• If you mispronoun your opponent
• If you're mean to less experienced debaters
• If you steal prep
• If you clip cards

Dear Novi:

• Do your thing. Be confident in your skills.
• If you lose the round, don't be discouraged. You will improve with time :)
• Read your case, defend it, respond to your opponent's case and framework
• Offense is key-- give me reasons why I should vote for you-- don't just tell me why I shouldn't vote for your opponent
• Extend and collapse-- you do not need to win all your contentions
• Give me voters
• Weigh and metaweigh !!
• You need to warrant your arguments, but you don't always need to read cards for them
• Ask me if you have any questions :)
• Do not post-round !!

Stuff:

• tech > truth
• We love weighing, but if there's none present in the round, I will default to probability
• If both debaters don't have offense at the end of the round, you will hear me asking Siri to flip a coin (unless someone wins presumption/permissibility)
• I'm good with speed, but be clear and signpost
• Give me a roadmap before you start your speech (should be 10 secs max)
• You should keep your own time and don't steal prep, but if I'm waiting a suspiciously long time for you to finish your speech or prep time, something will happen (I will ask you how much time you took and please don't lie to me)
• Extend and strategically collapse !
• I don’t flow CX
• Don't be rude during CX
• Ask for your opponent's pronouns if you're going to refer to them by their pronouns
• Fill up your time-- if you have time left, elaborate on your points
• Compiling a doc is prep, but waiting for a marked doc or sending the doc isn't
• Provide trigger warnings if you think it's necessary

Prefs:

1- K, Identity Tricks, Performance, Non-T

2 - Theory, Larp

3 - T

4 - Trad

5 - Baudrillard, Psycho

Strike - Phil, Tricks, Friv Theory

But I will vote on anything as long you explain the argument well enough for me to understand

K, Identity Tricks, Non-T, Performance-- I already like you. Just do your thing.

Theory-- I default to CI, no RVIs, DTD, Yes 1AR Theory, and education as a voter, except for reasonability against all friv shells (all spec shells are friv). The more frivolous the shell, the lower the threshold I have for responses. I will not evaluate any shells on clothing, appearance, bringing a plushie to the round, having stickers on your laptop (you get the idea). Please send all interps and slow down on analytics. Sell me your abuse story. I like a well thought-out, specific, creative interp and standards. Generics that can be used for every round are fine, but I know you can do better.

Larp-- Econ, disease, heg, and PICs make me sad. Everything else is fine.

T-- You need a terminal impact and why it matters.

Trad-- I love a good trad debate with creative contentions. Util makes me sad, but I will vote on it.

Phil-- Please only run arguments and positions that you will be able to explain well. Don't just throw complex vocab at me and be dodgy during CX because you think it's cool. I need to be able to understand your arguments if you want me to vote on it.

Tricks-- If you extemp this, speak slower or else it's not my fault if I miss it. My standards for responses to tricks are very low; any response is enough.

Speaks:

I usually give high speaks

Be clear.

Fill up your time.

Don’t be mean.

Don’t be sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

Don’t post round.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck and have fun :)

My name is Isobel (she/her) and I mainly compete in BQ and LD debate, but I have some experience in PF, GD, and Impromptu.

Share your case docs with me before the round- my email is ijmks191@gmail.com

Truth > Tech

The two most important parts of debate (imo) are respect and genuine clash

Discriminatory arguments are completely unacceptable and will not only lower your speaks, but may cost you the round

Using pronouns other than they/them when your opponent hasn’t disclosed theirs will result in dropped speaker points

I strongly discourage spreading (ESPECIALLY in novice debate) because it hinders effective clash and argumentation

GENERAL:

I won’t interrupt you if you go over time, but I’ll stop flowing it

Online debate- please turn on cameras (unless you have wifi issues and need to turn it off)

I love unconventional arguments, feel free to get creative (while maintaining a strong link chain)!!

LD:

I just want VERY clear link chain in extinction impacts

EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND

For theory- explain the relevance in the round or I won't vote on it

PF:

Make sure to weigh in FF

Don't be unnecessarily aggressive and rude in grand cross

BQ:

Since Big Questions debate is so new, there are relatively few concrete norms established. With this said, I suggest treating BQ as a combination of PF and LD (the timing and general round structure of PF + the generally philosophical & analytical evidence used in very traditional LD). As the NSDA 2023 Big Questions Debate National Champ, I'm more than happy to share my experience competing in Big Questions and to offer any advice :)

From Paul Wexler’s Paradigm:

“Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

-Exhibit the ability to use CX effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)”

Hi, I am a parent who is new to judging debate, but I am excited to help produce a fun and educational experience for everyone.

As such, I will respond well to structured arguments delivered at a steady, clear pace. I value clear signposting and clear referencing of each other's contentions. This will influence how I assign speaker points, as well as assist me in maintaining an accurate flow.

In my preparation, I have found spreading difficult to follow, and I ask that you avoid it if possible. A few strong points, expressed well, will do better than a large number of points that lack focus.

I will have a round timer but appreciate debaters monitoring their own time.

I expect everyone to be polite and respectful.

Thanks, and have fun!

I'm a Senior at Lexington High School and have debated for four years. I have experience in LD and PF, but prefer traditional LD.

Email chain (add both): feomorozov@gmail.com, 24stu189@lexingtonma.org

Novices:

Read whatever you would like as long as you explain well.

To win the ballot: weigh and crystallize. Tell me which arguments matter and why they matter. Do not leave connections between arguments to be made by me. Explicitly link your defense to the argument it is intended against.

Speaker points:

I intend for your speaker points to reflect how well you spoke rhetorically in the round. My criteria are as follows.

• Speak passionately and persuasively. Emphasize what is important, engage me.

• Present your arguments (offense and defense) in a logical order. Do not leave it up to me to make connections between your arguments for you.

• Dominate cross. This is one of the best ways to boost your speaks. Be assertive. Your opponent's case should be in shambles after such a cross, find contradictions, use counter examples etc. That being said, do not be a prick, unnecessarily interrupt, or be cocky. These are not persuasive traits in a speaker and your points will reflect it.

• Make intuitive arguments and use historical examples to prove/disprove points.

I look forward to judging your round.

hi! i debated for four years in high school.

add me to the email chain; my email is carissa.qiu@gmail.com

general comments:

novice:

- i will track time of all speeches and prep, but i encourage you to keep track of your own time as well (don't try to steal prep).

- make sure you properly extend all parts of a k or t if you're planning to win on those args.

- cps should have a clear net benefit.

- the da's link to the aff should be well explained.

- weighing and impact calc are crucial during rebuttals. make sure you're weighing under your framework

- coherent spreading is appreciated during rebuttals; go line by line

- feel free to ask me any questions after!

jv:

- tech > truth

- explain theory with all parts, nuance and expand on if you want to win on it

- try to summarize the debate at the end with impact calc

- you can run anything

hi! i'm aishwarya and a junior at bronx science (she/her)

please start an email chain (ravichana@bxscience.edu) or speechdrop!

do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you will be auto-dropped

novices:

• make sure to weigh your impacts!! give voters, explain which arguments matter and why

• always extend, but do not go for all of your contentions -- it's better and easier to evaluate when you collapse on a contention.

• try not to concede your CX or speech time

• make sure to lbl

• remember that novice year is for learning! please don't put too much pressure on one round, feel free to ask me any questions after round

jvers:

Shortcut

tech > truth

Ks- 1

LARP- 2

Theory- 3

Phil/Tricks (especially tricks)- 4/5/strike

lexington high school '25

Add me to the email chain: 25stu399@lexingtonma.org

-------

Hi! I'm Mirei (me-ray) and I'm a junior at Lexington High School in MA. I've done LD for 3 years, and I have experience on the local and national circuits.

Read whatever arguments you want and are most comfortable with. I'll evaluate anything, but I may be more receptive to arguments that I'm more familiar with (see below). Please collapse and write my ballot for me :)

If you do anything explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you will be dropped. If you are overly rude or bully someone that clearly has less experience than you, I'll probably tank your speaks.

Fine for speed, I'll yell clear if I can't understand you, but I'll miss args if I can't flow them.

Tech > Truth

if you're def winning feel free to sit down early (tell me and I'll up speaks)

if you add cute animals to your docs +.5 speaks

--------

Novices:

I'm a tech > truth judge, so I'll be looking for you to win the flow! Please collapse, explain how your arguments interact with each other, and extend them into later speeches. Extend the aff case in the 1AR and 2AR, and extend the neg case in the 2NR! Just saying "Extend X" without explaining the argument probably won't count as a full extension for me, especially if your opponent points that out. I won't vote on brand new arguments in the 2NR/2AR. Write my ballot for me, and let me know if you have any questions before/after round and I’ll be happy to help. Be respectful and kind to your opponents, and have a great round!

------

Speaks / General Stuff:

If you are debating someone that clearly has less experience than you, read whatever arguments you want but please be accessible in CX and don't be rude or annoying (I'll lower speaks).

Average speaks are 28.5 and they go up/down based on clarity, explanation, strategic vision, creativity, and execution.

Feel free to ask questions after round or post-round, as long as it's respectful! Have fun :)

------

PF:

I don't debate PF, but I have a general understanding of how it functions. Given my background in LD, I'm a flow/tech judge and I will be looking for extensions, collapsing, weighing, etc. Signpost and be respectful in cross. I may not be familiar with PF jargon/topics so overexplain!

--------

JV LD:

Quick Prefs:

Ks: 1/2

Theory: 1/2

Policy: 2/3

Phil: 3

High Theory: 4/5

Tricks: 5

Longer Version:

Ks:

My NC strat usually included a K (mostly setcol, IR, or cap), so I'll be pretty receptive to these and have a decent understanding of how they function. Please explain your arguments as if I know nothing, especially for denser Ks.

K-Affs:

I read both K-affs and T-FW regularly, so I'm 50-50 on voting for either one. For K-affs, please explain your method and solvency/spillover claims. I'm very receptive to smart impact turns and LBL. For T-fw, I'm probably more inclined to vote on case turns, TVA solves, and education/engagement links than hard-right fairness pushes, but I'll listen to anything. Not the best judge for Nebel T so please explain it well.

Theory:

Fine for all types of theory (disclo, friv, etc), I usually default theory as the highest layer. That being said, I won't do the work for you and I'll vote on reasonability / DTA / no RVIs / K > if those arguments are made.

Defaults (only if no arguments are made):

Competing Interps > Reasonability

DTA > DTD (except for disclosure)

Accessibility > Fairness > Education

Policy:

I don't read these arguments often so I don't know the intricacies of the style. Slow down and explain.

Phil / High Theory:

Anything besides Kant I have very limited experience with, so please slow down and explain your arguments. I'll vote on anything as long as I understand what I'm voting for.

Tricks:

I'd prefer it if you don't read these in JV/Novice, but I'll vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact that I flowed.

My name is Clara (she/her) and I’m a student debater for Arlington High School with experience in LD, PF, and BQ.

Common courtesy:

I will not vote on any arguments that are homophobic, racist, sexist etc.

Use appropriate content warnings. These sources suggest potential lists of warnings

Speaker points:

Spreading will drop your speaks. If you plan on spreading send me your case or I will not flow it.

Using lots of jargon in novice division will drop your speaks

Using pronouns for your opponent other than they/them when your opponent hasn’t disclosed their pronouns will drop your speaker points

Argumentation:

Truth > tech. You should be extending your arguments and responding to all your opponents points, but major issues in the round are more important than dropping a sub point

Signposts are important. I recommend using an offtime roadmap

Weigh throughout the round and interact with your opponents weighing

Make clear voters in your last rebuttal.

Non-conventional arguments are undervalued in debate, be creative

I’m ok with kritiks but be sure to explain why I should vote on them

If you run theory make sure there is a legitimate violation or I won't vote on it

I prefer traditional cases over progressive arguments

I am unlikely to vote on progressive arguments in Novice LD or PF

Framework (for LD):

Framework is how I will evaluate the round. Argue and extend your framework. I recommend weighing your impacts on your opponents frameworks in addition to your own

I’m not a big fan of utilitarianism framework. This does not mean you can’t run util but if your opponent brings up problems with util, it will be an uphill battle warranting it in rebuttal

If you run any uncommon framework be sure to explain it

If the value debate doesn’t matter don’t spend time on it in rebuttal (ex. Morality vs. justice)

BQ:

I think BQ is a great form of debate when done correctly. Debaters in BQ rounds need to have clear extensions in consolidation and spend time framing the round to show me why their side is winning.

Info

Hello, my name is Sophie Shaw (She/her).

I am a junior at Lexington High School, and this is my second year in LD debate. I have competed on both the national and local circuit.

For Novices

Please speak clearly and signpost before and during your round (give a roadmap before your speeches). If I don't know where to flow a specific argument, you run the risk of me not flowing it at all.

I have the most experience with typical lay cases (ie contentions) but I am also familiar with Ks such as Afropess and Fem. Ultimately, you can run anything as long as your opponent is comfortable with it.

Value criterion holds the highest layer in the debate, so you must win under your framework or prove why your framework outweighs your opponent's.

Please WEIGH and give VOTERS in your last speech! It is best if you collapse on a few key arguments in your later speeches that you can defend and develop well.

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

I always disclose the ballot if the tournament allows me to.

Please keep your own time with a timer that rings rather than a stopwatch. There is nothing more awkward than me or your opponent having to stop you mid-speech because you are 20 seconds over your time.

Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round, and you can send questions to my email at 25stu519@lexingtonma.org.

Good luck and have fun!!!

Hi I'm Angela! I'm a junior at lexington highschool

Pronouns are (she/her)

I've been doing LD for 3 years on both the local and national circuit. I'm comfy with most arguments, tldr is to just make sure your clear and you write my ballot for me.

Yes I want to be on the email chain angelabowman07@gmail.com but speech drop is prob easier

Quick prefs:

• friv theory - 1
• generic theory/t - 1
• generic K's - 2
• policy - 4
• generic phil (kant, hobbes, etc..) - 3
• tricks - 3

Notes:

I will try my best evaluate almost every type of argument but there's no guarantee I can evaluate it well (i.e. if you read dense phil tricks I will try but no guarantee I will vote the right way unless you explain it really clearly)

For novices:

I'm comfortable with you reading anything no matter how weak the link chain is, I vote off of any argument as long as I flow a warrant

tech>truth

please make sure you weigh (under your framework and just impact clac) and write my ballot for me in your last speech

some notes:

• tech > truth
• my speaks start at a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round
• I don't tolerate in-round violence (this includes, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc...) I'll drop you with low speaks
• don't be rude
• *I suck at flowing so if your opponent dropped something make sure to emphasize it
• I don't listen or flow cx

3rd year LD debater at Needham High School. Third time judging.

email: jgtsung@gmail.com

Please speak loudly and clearly

Please ask if everyone is ready before starting your speeches

Please weigh and crystalize, this will increase your chances of winning and make judging a lot easier for me!

Since this is novice division, NO theory, Ks, or spreading

have fun!

Background: Junior, 3rd Year Debater at Lexington High School.

Email: 25stu260@lexingtonma.org

Arguments: I am fine with all types of arguments, but make sure they are clear

Important things to do:

1. Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

2. Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.

3. Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.

4. Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.

Speakers:

1. Give off-time road maps so that I can follow each argument on the flow. Be sure to sign-post in speeches as well.

2. If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important parts

3. Be nice and respectful

4. Arguments must be logical and have clear links, warrants, and impacts

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions