Lexington Virtual JV Round Robin
2024 — NSDA Campus, MA/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello, 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 senior. 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!
- Clashing with your opponent
- Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
- Being clear
- Time yourself
- 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
- Please email me if you have any questions let’s chat!
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!
Grant Brown (He/Him/His)
Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^
Former Head Coach at the Brearley School; I am mostly retired now from debate
^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]
Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com
Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory
Last Updates: 6/29/2023
Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum
The Short Version
As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:
1. What are their qualifications?
I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.
2. What will they listen to?
Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.
3. What are they experienced in?
I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.
4. What do they like?
I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.
5. How do they adjudicate debates?
I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.
The Longer Version
At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.
I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.
Kritiks
I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.
I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.
Theory
I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.
Policy Arguments
I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.
Ethical Frameworks
I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.
If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.
Public Forum
I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.
Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.
Speaks and Ethics Violations
If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.
Hi!!
I'm Sam, a senior at Lexington High School, and I've been debating since freshman year.
Please add me to the email chain: fortiersamantha5@gmail.com, and COME ON TIME!!!!!
TBH this paradigm was written junior year, but I haven't really been on the circuit senior year and so you should go slow and consider me much more flay than your average Lex judge. That being said, these were my opinions last year lol.
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 -- 2
Phil -- 5
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.
put me on the email chain - brookiegemechu@gmail.com
my background: hi!! I’m Brooke and I’m a junior at Hawken in Ohio. i’ve been debating since my freshman year ! I am also the co-president of Women in Debate (w.in) which I highly recommend for any gender minorities looking for resources and/or a safe space to go check out :)
I did PF for 1.5 years and switched to LD halfway through my sophomore year. I qualified to & broke at the Ohio state tournament and NSDA nats, did a lot of nat circuit debate, qualified to the TOC last year, and reached late elims at various tournaments.
I have now been in LD for a year. Being from Ohio, I primarily do trad debate and these are by far my fav kind of rounds! Last year, I placed 2nd at NCFL, 13th at NSDAs, and auto-qualified to next year's NSDAs. i will be very very very happy to judge a lay round :).aside from my love for lay debate, I also compete in nat circuit LD and am down to judge whatever you want. i qualified to the TOC in LD this year and have reached bid rounds & elims at a few tournaments.
tldr, do what you want and read what you want (scroll for my preferences though), but treat me a little bit more trad please! be heavy on analysis/explanation/solid warranting, especially in tech rounds. i'll do my best to understand and will pretty much vote on anything off my flow with a claim, warrant, and impact (unless it's really offensive or problematic but scroll down for more of my thoughts on that)
also, please be nice and respectful! i strongly dislike rounds where debaters are rude, hateful, or disrespectful toward others. debate can be very toxic and i really prefer that you do your part in keeping rounds generally positive and welcoming to everyone :)
quick prefs:
trad - 1
policy, LARP - 1/2
theory - 3
Ks - 4
tricks :((((( and phil - 5
My more specific thoughts and personal opinions:
Speed -
Spreading is fine! I personally enjoy moderately paced rounds more but do what you want as long as I have a doc. that being said, I still think you should be clear and I'd rather be able to comprehend your spreading / not just flow straight off the doc so plz keep it intelligible. also if you're not sending analytics then slow down for what's not on the doc so I don't miss it. and don't be TOO blippy in your responses and spend like one second on something because chances are I'll miss it or not flow it properly and that's not good!
Trad -
While I do love lay debate it can get a) pretty boring, b) way too rhetoric-y, and c) used as an excuse to lie and unwarrant things. So, I appreciate creative, more in-depth, and substantive trad rounds. I also think you should still be doing solid work on the flow and winning the line-by-line even if it's not a tech round. Weighing and judge instruction are ur friends!
Ks -
I can judge a K round but I'm not the best and definitely not familiar with very many lit bases, so I would appreciate if you treat me like I know close to nothing. be very clear in articulating why the K or your performance of it matters and why you need my ballot.
I'm neutral for non-T affs vs T-fwk and don't really lean more one way or the other. I'll be happy with either side and equally willing to vote on whatever you do. I expect good t-framework interactions and good work on the line-by-line if you're reading the K aff.
** just a note - i am very much not cool with non-black debaters reading afropess or making pessimistic claims about blackness. plz be careful and intentional with what u read!
Theory -
Theory debates need to be clean for me to wrap my head around them. Tell me a clear abuse story and do explicit weighing for me ! I fear I'm not too good at evaluating theory debates so the more judge instruction you do here, the better. I don't really like friv theory and have a pretty low threshold for responses so keep that in mind and I'll be happy.
Policy -
I like policy debate a lot and I don't really have much to say here. Please a) weigh and do comparative analysis as to why your world is better than the other side b) read actually warranted responses, not just blippy analytics or undercut evidence and c) make the round make sense and try not to be messy
^on that note i really like judge instruction in general so your back half speeches should be telling me very clear reasons why I should be voting for you - write my ballot for me
Tricks -
i really don't like tricks! i cannot evaluate them and prob won't give you the decision you want and also i just don't like them so please don't
Phil -
I can handle ur basic fws and common authors (kant, locke, hobbes, etc)! However, I don't really like phil rounds mainly because i don't really understand very dense phil rounds. So i am pretty much a no-go for high theory or anything dense and convoluted and I won’t really know how to evaluate these debates. but if you must…if you break down these rounds very clearly for me then i'll do my best to follow. Please a) slow down and B) explain in a VERY simple way
Other important things -
be civil and let each other talk in cx please! i don't like when people are mean and there's no reason to be :(
don't be any of the isms plz and thx and don't read things that are hateful or repugnant! i will interfere and i think debate should be a safe space for everyone - this means making sure people in the round feel comfortable with the arguments you are reading and that you are being considerate of others and not insensitive
^speaking of that, i think trigger warnings are good and you should give them!
i'll listen to cx and i think it is binding but u need to bring those things up in a speech
Random -
ask me about my bible verse laptop stickers and i’ll yap abt them and probably give u high speaks !
come up with a fun warrant for 30 speaks and i will give it to u
ask me any questions at all! i am happy to explain decisions more in detail or answer questions but would prefer not to engage in excessive post-rounding lol. but if you have any paradigm questions or any debate questions or any totally unrelated inquiries, ask me!
most importantly, have a fun round and enjoy ur debate experience :)))
Jack Gessner
Harrison High School - '25
Add me to the email chain: jackedup2030@gmail.com
Overview: Very tab judge. I have opinions on what debate I like, but down to evaluate anything.
"Tech>truth no exceptions" -Wyatt Hatfield
Biggest Influences: Wyatt Hatfield, Eric He, Karan Shah, Aidan Etkin
General
Policy/T – 1
Phil - 1
Tricks – 1/2
Theory - 3
K - 4/5
Non T – Strike
Trad - Meh (If you're a novice stick to what makes you comfortable, but these rounds get boring af tbh)
SPECIFIC STUFF:
Disad -Relevant uniqueness and strong links are key. DA debates are fun, weighing and comparing evidence is what it comes down to.
Counterplan - Love a good Advantage CP. I prefer solvency advocates and net benefits
K - Not against them but not very well equipped to judge them. I'll understand generics but won't love the more dense ones. The more specific the alt is, the better.
Phil -Good for all types. Favorites are Kant and Locke. Comfortable evaluating any type of Phil, just do clear weighing and engage in contention level debates. Flag phil tricks clearly in rebuttals.
Theory -Theory doesn't need to check abuse but don't be too cringe with your frivolous interps. If you're winning an interp, violation, and net benefits to your interp then I'm voting on any shell.
Tricks - "Strategic - Please have a claim, warrant, and impact in the speech it's introduced" -Ali Ahmad
Love tricks debates. Not the world's best or fastest flower so minimize blitzing through one liners. clash and weighing between tricks are necessary for a clear ballot. Going for a visible and contested trick = good speaks. Going for a hidden/sneaky trick = bad speaks. Don't lie in cross, don't be afraid to have a legit debate.DO LINE BY LINE
Do not be afraid to go for a trick that has been answered. You'll get amazing speaks if you go for a tricky arg that has ink on it.
I will vote on 'eval after x speech' ONLY IF there are warrants for it, and only if you put it in plain sight and actually have the debate. Hiding eval is lame
Non T - Oftentimes cringe and unstrategic. I'll obviously evaluate the Aff but probably not the right judge for these strats.
Misc. Things
Better than most for cap good and neoliberalism good
I'm not a radical K hack because I'm from Harrison. I'll evaluate them but I'm far different from the rest of Harrison
I'll vote on RVIs - Most of the time they are dumb but if they're won they're won
Reasonability is good - The more frivolous the shell gets the less justification I need for it.
Impact Turns are underrated. Except Dedev, dumb argument.
Read paradigm issues. I won't default to anything for you
Huge fan of Skep
Long K overviews are a tremendous waste of time - Give a quick OV and get right into the Line by line
I'm better than most for abusive perms
I lean heavily Neg on condo debates. I'm probably good for infinite condo
Drop the argument is a criminally underrated way to eliminate theory offense. I'd love to see it.
Strategic concessions of defense to take out offense is a really entertaining strategy that I will reward you for.
Yes, zero risk is a thing.
If the Aff defends the whole res as a "value statement" without implementation I still believe you get DA links to the resolution itself.
Give me a bright line for the weighability of reps. How else am I supposed to justify why your reps are better
Death good is ok but I'd prefer you have a legit reason to read it instead of just reading it just because
How to get good speaks
Be clear. Even if you get killed it doesn't make you a bad speaker
Low point wins are probable in many circumstances - You can win the debate and not deserve good speaks. Similarly you can lose and get rewarded for your strategy choice.
Any questions feel free to ask
You can post round me, just be reasonable, don't be yelling or cursing me out. I'm happy to argue about my decision if you need to.
PF
This section of the paradigm is at the bottom for a reason.
I've never been involved or interested in PF in all of my high school career. I'm not sure the nuances of the event, and I don't even really know the speech times, So you can get away with doing pretty much anything If you're unlucky enough to have me judging you.
I'd say it's best to be circuity because PF rounds can get boring unless you're these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p_LXeyq3Uw
I heard something about counterplans being cheating, not sure whats up with that, but I'll evaluate them???
Aanya Ghosh
You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/
PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible
General
I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD.
I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.
I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep. I don't care how you share evidence.
The email chain should be formatted as follows:
Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]
Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Not evaluating anything that occurred out-of-round besides disclosure. I will listen to CX.
I don't care if you tag-team/open/ CX or use flex prep.
Any defaults I do have (would like to think I don't have any) can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made.
I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.
New 2NR evidence: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to.
PF
You need to share all evidence/cases BEFORE your speeches with me (and each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share - I have no preference
I would STRONGLY prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations/the card format in the speech doc when paraphrasing.
I care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot. Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly.
If one team is reading properly cited evidence and the other is not, I will be very sympathetic if that team points this out and makes it a reason to drop the other team for ev ethics reasons (but it needs to be a complete argument)
If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).
I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.
Policy
Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.
Kritik
I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.
Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.
Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.
Philosophy
I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".
Determinism is one of my favorite arguments.
Theory
I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.
For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).
T
Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.
Tricks
I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.
Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.
Speaks
I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.
Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways
Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):
- Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
- Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
- Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
- Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs- 1 try each
- Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution- 1 guess per person
- I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
- Beat me at Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
- W references in your speech (Nettspend, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)
Hey y'all. I'm Sarah, my pronouns are she/her
3 Years on circuit LD at Livingston HS in NJ- I'm a senior
Spreading is fine but share your doc with me: sarahelana104@gmail.com
Updated for Ridge: If you're a novice, just run whatever you're comfortable with, I'm fine with evaluating any basic args.
tech>truth but if you make up insane statistics that might not be the case
TLDR: I hate phil and love policy/literally anything that isn't phil
prefs:
LARP/T-1: I do LARP, so naturally I'm most comfortable evaluating it. I'm an avid believer that if you're not debating topically, then you're not solving the resolution. Were debating the topic, not some random theory of the world.
Theory-1: If you win on theory you probably win the debate (depending on the shell). I'm also kinda a fan of Friv theory but only if it fits the vibe of the round
Ks-2: I can evaluate a K, but something that's super specific to a cultural group/minority that requires intense understanding of the group may not be something you want to read in front of me
Tricks-3: I think tricks are kinda awful. Depending on how fast you read, in my mind its basically cheating. nobody wants to have to listen to every word of someone yapping just to hear "and vote for me unless they say the word notebook". That defeats the entire purpose of a debate in my opinion
Phil-3: Please don't run Phil. I will literally cry if you read phil
I love a good CP/DA. I've always run them and think they're super convincing, depending on if its a logical plan
-------General beliefs
-1N theory> 1AR theory> weighing> weird side specific Rotb
-T>FW
-extinction as an extension to a separate impact is kinda cheating
-I totally buy extinction but only if its the only impact- you cant just fall back on the idea that nothing happens if were dead aka having an extinction impact in a util fw isn't reasonable.
-no flex prep
-fairness=education
Speaks:
You start at 25 and get points added, not taken away
If you're nice before the debate and like actually talk, that's a good thing
Ill disclose wins at end of round but not speaks- if you want feedback ask for it otherwise it will just be in your RFD
If you've read this far and see this, talk about your favorite food in any speech for +speaks
Or if you show me a pic of your pet pre round/post round or during YOUR OWN PREP +speaks (Ill show u my doggy too shes so cute)
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).
Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.
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.
Name: Lalit Kumar
Email: lalit96@yahoo.com
I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the LD and how it works. I have judged PF tournaments for over a year and got familiarity with LD debates. I have also researched the current topic in detail online.
I usually join a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.
Key notes:
-
Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.
-
Document sharing - please share your speech/response docs ahead of time so I can follow along. Include me in the email chain (lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com) Please ensure the subject is not blank and populated with tournament name and round.
-
Clarity - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated with evidence
-
Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations. Please explain any technical jargon that you use.
-
Time - Going overtime will lead to deductions. I would recommend timing yourself and your opponents. In case you notice your opponent is overtime, feel free to raise your zoom hand to highlight this.
-
Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.
-
Theories and Ks - I have limited understanding of Theories and Ks; but I am okay to proceed as long as you break it down in simple and clear terms. You need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic.
-
I don't prefer extinction, but I don't mind as long as you have a clear link chain.
Lake Highland '25
I'm best for the K but willing to judge anything. However, I know the least about phil and tricks, so err on over-explanation. Everything else in the middle makes sense to me.
I'm bad at flowing so speak clearly or slowly.
For Lex RR you can read anything you want.
Random notes
1. When an analytical argument without evidence is made that references the real world (e.g. an assertion that x politician is unpopular because of y recent event) but is conceded, my general stance is that I will vote on it unless told otherwise. Likewise, the threshold for answering these arguments is very low given their lack of evidence.
Background: Senior, 4th 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
Hi! I'm aishwarya and a senior 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:
- Weigh impacts, give voters
- Extend & collapse on contentions
- Avoid conceding CX or speech time
- Make sure to lbl
- Remember novice year is for learning! feel free to ask me any questions after round
jvers:
Shortcut
tech > truth
Ks- 1
LARP- 1/2
Theory- 3
Phil/Tricks (especially tricks)- 4/5/strike
lexington high school '25
-------
Hi! I'm Mirei (me-ray) and I'm a senior at Lexington High School. I've done LD for 4 years, and I have experience on both the local and national circuits (2x TOC qualifier).
I hate judge intervention so I'll vote on anything !
Obvious exception is if you do anything explicitly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc (you'll be dropped).
check out @windebate for free mentoring and resources for women and gender minorities in debate !
--------
Novices:
Be in the room at start time !!!
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 extending a warrant does not count as a full extension for me, especially if your opponent points that out. 2NR and 2AR should have weighing and explaining to me why your arguments come first. 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.
------
Speaks / General Stuff:
If you are debating someone that clearly has less experience than you, read whatever you want but don't be annoying.
Average speaks are 28.5 and they go up/down based on clarity, explanation, strategic vision, and execution.
------
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 will be looking for extensions, collapsing, weighing, etc. I may not be familiar with PF jargon/topics so over explain!
--------
JV LD:
K: 1/2
Theory: 3
Policy: 3
Phil: 3
High Theory: 4
Tricks: 4
Ks:
My NC strat usually includes a K so I have a decent understanding of how they function. Explain your arguments as if I know nothing, especially for denser Ks and high theory.
K-Affs / T-FW:
I read 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. Not the best judge for Nebel T so explain well.
Theory:
No such thing as friv theory, 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.
Policy:
I don't read policy arguments often so slow down and explain. Not a good judge for a dense policy debate.
Phil / High Theory:
Anything besides Kant I have very limited experience with, so 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 and understand.
Hey, I'm Prateek. I'm a senior in high school and a 6th year LD debater at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've accumulated 18 career bids to the TOCs and cleared 2x.
Email: prateekseela24@gmail.com
TLDR: I try to be as tab as possible. I don't care what you do, what you read, or how you read it. As long as your complying with tournament, tab, and debate rules you're good. I appreciate if you're nice, can navigate polarized spaces through dialogue, and rationalize disagreements.
PREFS (I can and will judge any round. These are just based on my familiarity):
Phil --- 1
T/Theory --- 2
Tricks --- 1
K --- 2
Policy --- 2
Defaults:
I don't want to have to default, but if I do then the following will be my defaults:
-
Skepticism is true (i.e. just read a framework)
-
Fairness and Education are voters
-
Fairness > Education
-
Jurisdiction > Fairness
-
Reps > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB
-
No RVI, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater
-
Truth Testing
-
Epistemic Confidence
-
P + P negate
-
Text > Spirit
General:
My thought on the way I should evaluate the round is basically as tab as possible. This means I'll vote on any argument proven true in the round.
Here's a list of a couple of ways I view debate/random things I would like to see:
1] An argument must consist of at least a claim and a warrant. The claim and warrant must relate to each other to be an argument, i.e. it has to be sequitur. Otherwise, I won't evaluate it.
2] Sending analytics (especially when you are reading at 350/400+ wpm)
3] Record your speeches in case your internet messes up
Theory:
There is no such thing as "frivolous theory". The entire point of the theory debate is to determine if a shell is frivolous or not. However, if your shell just says infinite abuse with barely any warrants in the 1NC, and you extremely explode it in the 2N, I may be easily persuaded aff.
Long theory underviews with under warranted arguments are fine, but at least try to justify some of your arguments, and please have good formatting.
Also, I will award better shells with higher speaks. For example, if you read a funny or creative shell. If you win on a "dumb" shell and execute it properly then I will also give you higher speaks. Some shells I just don't like generally, but will still evaluate fairly, are shells that say you can't say X paradigm issues.
I think that disclosure is probably a good thing, but this won't affect my decision. You can read whatever disclosure shell you want in front of me.
I like good paradigm issues/theory framing debates like norms creation vs. in-round abuse, standard weighing, theory tricks like framework take-outs, etc.
Topicality:
Any theory things also apply here. Please do evidence comparison and weighing. Also, try to have some good justifications for semantics. Most times, people have just 1 line no warrants. On the other side, please please please have a justification for Niemi if you read it analytically or even carded. If the 1AR is 1 sentence, "Grammar DA: ..." there is a high chance I will believe the 2AR is just completely new and not buy it. I also want a warrant as to why it is a reason to DTD and not a reason to reject semantics.
Framework:
Substantively, phil debate is what I do the most, and is my favorite type of debate. I read Hobbes, Agonism/Mouffe, Kant, International Law, and different types of Skepticism the most. I am also familiar with and have read Hegel, Levinas, Pettit, Contractarianism, Virtue Ethics, Nozick/Libertarianism, Jaeggi, and more, but you can still read anything you want.
Reading multiple hijacks that hijack the same premise of the framework is questionable, and the 1AR should point this out. That being said, I think good hijacks are incredibly under-used, and if read properly can be great. This is why you should also have a coherent syllogism and not skip steps in the actual framework.
If you're reading TJFs or lots of independent reasons to prefer, I think its a good idea to justify why frameworks have to be theoretically justified and why that comes before substantive justifications. Same thing applies to other independent reasons to prefer. I think that TJFs are really dumb, but I'll still vote on them.
I also think that a framework can and easily should be able to up-layer and be able to take out other positions like theory. It's a pretty under-utilized strategy, but if executed well can be very strategic.
Lastly, I love permissibility triggers if actually warranted.
Tricks:
Substantive tricks > random definitions and theory spamming.
Read truth testing. However, not all tricks require truth testing and if you explain why they don't I'll be happy.
I like tricks being applied to other flows, and in-depth weighing on how the logic behind the trick actually interacts with arguments being made.
Some tricks I like are trivialism, indexicals, rule-following paradox, concept skep, external-world skep, particularism, contingent standards, etc.
LARP:
Do whatever you want just weigh and you should be fine. I may not be the best at judging these debates, but I'm pretty confident I can judge most of them. Please actually justify util lol - consequentialism good warrants are not the same as util. Also, calc indicts are not silly (you can make arguments for why they are, which is fine, but asserting they are is not).
K:
My experience with these has actually increased, and I'm pretty confident I can evaluate almost every K debate. Ks I have read include Generic Cap, Dean, Anarchism, Semiocap, Lacan, Deleuze, and Settler Colonialism. Other Ks I understand but have not read to a decent point are Queerpess, Disabilitypess, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Security, and more.
Just weigh your ROB and explain what it means and you will be fine. I would also like for you to engage in your opponent's framework, e.g. instead of just like "white phil bad" explain the points of disagreement or even how the historical backing affects their theory. Obviously, not all K debaters do this, but all different "types" of debaters do this in any type of round, this is just an example I have came across.
Hey I’m Jacob (he/him), and I’m a senior at Bronx Science in my third year of LD.
Please add me to the email chain at skolnickj@bxscience.edu (speechdrop is fine too). If you have any questions about my paradigm you can email me too.
Tech >>>> truth
Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. or I’ll vote you down.
I am not great at flowing spreading so please slow down during rebuttal speeches (especially for online tournaments). I’ll say clear/slow if I have to. Go as fast as you want in the 1AC/1NC but slow down for tags. I would definitely appreciate speech docs for 1ARs if you have them but it’s fine if you don’t.
TLDR: read whatever you want, I’ll do my best to evaluate anything but I’m definitely more familiar with certain types of arguments.
For JV LD: I'm fine with progressive arguments in JV, but if you're going against someone less experienced than you then it would be great if you try to make the round accommodating. My lay/progressive paradigms are below so just look at those for specifics.
For progressive LD:
1- theory
2- policy, basic Ks, T
3- tricks
4- basic Phil
5/strike- really complex Ks and dense phil
Just make sure you weigh and give good judge instruction, I don’t really care what you read. The rankings above are just based on how much familiarity I have with each argument (if you read phil or complex Ks I won’t lower your speaks or anything but there’s a greater chance you’ll be unhappy with my decision because I may not understand).
Theory
- This is probably what I’m most familiar with.
- I will vote on any shell no matter how “frivolous” it is. However, I would much rather vote on shells that are based on an in-round violation (afc, csa, etc.) instead of silly out of round violations.
- Disclosure and wiki shells are cool against other progressive debaters but reading a stupid wiki shell against a novice or inexperienced independent/small school debater will probably make me drop your speaks.
- I default No RVIs, competing interps, DTA, norm setting, text > spirit. Any of these can be changed with literally a sentence, this is only if nothing at all is read in round.
- I will be happy to vote on an RVI if you win it.
- Please make sure you impact everything out and give me a clear ballot story in your last speech. I do not want to do work for you because the round came down to theory and nothing was weighed.
- 1AR restarts are fun but if the 2NR responds to everything properly I find it hard to vote aff unless the 2AR is like perfect or something.
Policy
- I read a decent amount of policy positions so I’m pretty familiar but I don’t really have strong opinions on this, just treat me like a normal judge.
- CPs are cool, I’m definitely a fan of process and consult. I’ll vote on anything if you win it. I will also vote on any type of CP theory.
- Default judge kick
- DAs and advantages and plans or whatever are all cool I don’t really have many feelings on them.
- I like impact turns
Ks
- I like Ks that I can understand but I’m not super familiar with a lot of them.
- I read a lot of security Ks last year so I’m most familiar with that, I know cap and setcol well enough. If it’s something that’s relatively basic I should be fine for it.
- Probably not the best judge for high theory, pomo, or super dense stuff. Explain more than usual if you’re going for this.
T
- honestly haven’t read this that much so I’ll probably treat it like theory with a few differences
- I don’t really want to evaluate a confusing grammar debate or stuff that heavily relies on semantics so if you go for it just explain it really well
- Typical T shells that are just limits or whatever I will prob be better at evaluating
Phil
- have never read this and don’t know much so I might be subconsciously biased towards consequentialism but I’ll try not to be.
- If it’s not Kant or something really basic I would probably advise against it but I’ll do my best. Definitely explain like a lot.
Tricks
- not the biggest fan of nailbomb ACs/NCs
- I’ll vote on whatever just tell me why
- If you’re exempting slow down or I won’t vote on it— I am not great at flowing spreading
Misc.
- I will probably default to a standard policymaking framework and util if literally nothing is read but please read a framework.
- Default permissibility and presumption flip neg but I am not firm on this at all.
- I don’t really have a preference whether or not you defend the resolution or what parts you defend.
For Lay LD/For Novice LD:
- I like lay debate
- You can definitely talk faster than you do with parent judges
- Weigh, meta-weigh and give voters
- Please clash or else I won’t know how to eval the round
- Please do line by line and signpost
- I will evaluate under the winning framework so if it’s util vs structural violence make sure that you’re clashing on the framework debate
- I will still only vote on tech and the flow, your ethos might win you some speaker points but not the round.
- I don’t plan on timing anything unless you tell me too, make sure you time your opponent and yourself.
Hi I'm Angela I'm a senior at lexington high school
tldr you can run what you want but make sure you're clear and you write my ballot for me in your last speech
Yes I want to be on the email chain angelabowman07@gmail.com but speech drop is easier
Quick prefs:
- theory - 1
- generic K's - 2
- policy - 4
- generic phil (kant, hobbes, etc..) - 4
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 29 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
LHP '25
Hi, I’m Suchi. This is my fifth year debating for Lake Highland. Please add me to the email chain at vennamsu@lhprep.org, or just use speech drop. Feel free to email me pre-round or post-round if you have any questions.
I’ll vote on basically any argument (as long as it isn't discriminatory, of course), and the following preferences are just what I’m familiar with. All this means is you might have to explain your argument more, but I’ll still be willing to vote on it if you do that sufficiently.
Note for Woodward: Please feel free to read what you're most comfortable reading. How you execute and understand your arguments, especially for a novice/2nd year tournament, is more important to me than what you read (as long as it isn't repugnant).
Pref Cheat Sheet:
Phil - 1
topical K affs - 1
K - 2
Trad - 2
T/Theory - 3
LARP - 3
non T affs - 3
substantive/phil-y tricks - 4
spammy/blippy tricks - 90000000
I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge.
Defaults:
I don't want to have to default, but if I do then the following will be my defaults:
-
Skepticism is true (i.e. just read a framework)
-
Fairness and Education are voters
-
Fairness > Education
-
Jurisdiction > Fairness
-
Reps > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB
-
No RVI, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater
-
Truth Testing
-
Epistemic Confidence
-
P + P negate
-
Text > Spirit
Random things:
- if you are funny/make the round enjoyable that's a W
- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me the ballot story it makes judging so much easier - I think its super strategic to end the last speech w 10-15 seconds of exactly what you think the RFD should be for you
- if you have any questions about the decision feel free to ask me, I would love to answer any questions/help you with anything
- When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced:your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.
- I'm probs not listening during cross - if u have a strategic concession make sure to bring it up in speech
Phil:
This is the debate I did the most, and I really appreciate people who do this well. I read Pettit, Hegel, Noxick, Kant, and Mouffe the most. However, I am familiar with most frameworks and I would love to judge a nuance phil framework, so you can really read anything. If you successfully execute NC/AC, expect high speaks.
Make sure to weigh justifications and explain your justifications in the context of both frameworks. Hijacks and contingent standards are all good as well. Please do not just read a framework with every other argument being an a priori.
Calc indicts are strategic and far more legitimate than many give them credence for. Don't read consequentialist offense pretending it links to a non-consequentialist standard. Framework vs. K debates are super interesting and cool.
Author indicts (as in Kant was racist) are not my favorite, especially if that source author was not read. They're justifiable if someone reads cards by Kant himself. Stuff like "Kant's theory is racist" is of course ok.
K affs:
I read these a lot and really enjoy them. I find them super strategic and if well-executed you should do well.
I think leveraging the AC versus multiple-offs is very strategic and would love to judge a round with this type of aff.
That being said, please understand your theory of power and what the aff actually does. EXPLAIN THE THEORY OF POWER AND INTERACT W UR OPPS CASE RATHER THAN J READING UR EXTENSIONS!!!
Non-topical affs are ok as well, but I’d prefer if you could relate your aff to the topic. I would probably be likely to vote on T, unless your non-T aff justifications are really good.
Counterinterps and impact turns to T/Theory are both good.
Kritiks:
Explain your role of the ballot and alternative well. Good examples are always very helpful. Specific links to the aff are nice, but generic ones are ok as well.
Perms are probably logically and theoretically justified; however, your K can of course indict the perm on its own grounds.
K turns/hijacks case is oftentimes very strategic against framework affs.
Weigh it against theory, and don't let your opponent get away with generic fairness key to testing arguments.
High-theory K's are chill - but EXPLAIN IT.
Ontological Pessimism:I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.
Trad:
Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:
- Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
- If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
- I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
- In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
- I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
- Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
- Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. Be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
- If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
- I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
- I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
Theory:
I am open to nearly any theory argument. I won’t vote on theory on your opponent’s identity, appearance, or out-of-round actions (except disclosure). Although I’ll vote on any other shell if won, it’s much easier to win a good shell (like pics bad or something) compared to a really bad shell. Paragraph theory is ok, too. Please weigh on all things that are in conflict with one another.
I'd also prefer you not hide theory arguments within other arguments!!! Long offensive underviews are undesirable, but alas permissible. Sure, I'll listen, but your speaks will be low. Here are some miscellaneous musings:
- Theory shells indicting the reading of a specific interp/paradigm issue are probably just counterinterps. To be clear, "may not read multiple shells" is fine, "may not read 'no neg args'" is probably not a voting issue.
- Theory debates should probably presume a world where the interp/counterinterp is the accepted interpretation. In context, this means debates over the goodness of RVIs should not include arguments about how the RVI is still debatable under their worldview.
- Paradigm issue debates are also very interesting.
-If its friv theory I will be very likely to buy sufficient defense to it
Topicality:
Just as with theory, I'll listen to anything.
LARP:
Just weigh and you should be fine for extinction impacts.
counter plans are a W.
Please justify utilitarianism. Consequentialism ≠ utilitarianism, and justifying the former does not automatically entail the latter.
Counte
Tricks:
Substantive tricks that you can actually defend like trivialism and some paradoxes are much better than random, absurd definitions and spamming theory spikes. Presumption and Permissability are not tricks in my opinion.
I will still vote on anything - but I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments and will probably tank speaks for spammy/blippy tricks
Please delineate and emphasize your tricks instead of hiding them in a paragraph. if i did not flow an exempted trick or one inside a big paragraph i will not vote on it so be careful
credit to Arjun Verma and Becca Traber
Background: Senior, 4th 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:
-
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.
-
Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.
-
Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.
-
Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.
Speakers:
-
Give off-time road maps so that I can follow each argument on the flow. Be sure to sign-post in speeches as well.
-
If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important parts
-
Be nice and respectful
-
Arguments must be logical and have clear links, warrants, and impacts
Most importantly, have fun!
Feel free to email/ask me any questions
About Me
(he/him)
10 years in debate
Background in political science (democratic legitimacy/decline, religion and politics, antisemitism) and philosophy (Rawls, Kant, virtue ethics)
Conflicts:
- Varsity LD Coach, James Logan High School
- former Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School
- Mavericks RS, University AN
Email Chain: bzdebatedocs@gmail.com(Subject: TOURNAMENT---ROUND---AFF vs NEG)
Disclaimer
Before anything else, I’m an educator and mandatory reporter. Debate is an extension of the classroom. I view my ballot as an endorsement of whatever strategy I vote for. If I find your strategy morally repugnant, problematic, or not conducive to educational debate, I’ll vote it down without hesitation. In addition to bigotry, this includes arguments in the 5/S category below. Additionally, if I find or am told that any behavior threatens someone’s physical or mental safety, I’ll end the round and report it appropriately.
Email chain/pre-round stuff should be done before the start time. The 1AC should begin at the start time.
Spreading is fine, but please start slow and build up. I’ll say “clear” twice before I stop trying to flow.
I'm flowing off my laptop but am not flowing off the doc.
Pref Shortcuts
1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality, trad
2 - policy args, soft left affs
3 - phil* (read below), theory
5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout/spark, death good
General Thoughts on Debate
The aff’s burden is to resolve some harm through a change in the status quo that matters under some framing mechanism. The neg’s burden is to meaningfully engage the aff and show that it’s a bad idea. Run whatever you’re comfortable with and please don’t overadapt. I genuinely enjoy judging debates where the competitors are meaningfully engaging on an important issue, regardless of the content. I don't think it's productive when the round is treated as a "joke," arguments are not produced with the intention of educational clash, or the debate devolves into high school drama. I like good arguments and below are what I consider to be qualities of good arguments.
Every argument should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. The larger the impact, the higher the threshold for the evidence. I think it’s a missed opportunity when debaters don’t address their opponents on the warrant or structural levels. Please weigh.
I tend to evaluate K rounds in terms of an ethical binary. If the K's theory of power is true, the round is a question of whether the aff links to the K's structural analysis. As such, you should make the link debate as clear and specific as possible (rehighlights, specific behavior, etc.). Generic links likely require overexplanation and you should give a strong reason why some larger structure being true is a problem for the aff. The alt doesn't necessarily have to solve, but the perm may take out the flow.
*Phil debate is good, but mainstream approaches to it are disappointing. There's significant misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the literature that indicates debaters aren't reading their source material. That frustrates me and is why I put phil at a 3. If you haven't read your literature or can't explain the theory without buzzwords, this applies to you. If you think this doesn't apply to you, I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you.
Theory is only for legitimate abuse. I won't evaluate blippy shells and will only consider interpretations that are in the file or email chain. These debates honestly get confusing for me, so please be clear and slow down on judge instruction. I find this is especially true when a bunch of standards get extended or answered, but I'm not told how they interact with each other.
I think stock T positions are good. I don't find T-FWK as a viable route to test a non-topical aff unless it's an "option of last resort" (Smith, 2021). If this is your strategy, you need a robust defense as to why you're not engaging the aff. With that said, if you're running a non-topical aff, you should have a clear explanation as to why wemust reject the topic (e.g., no TVA), what the ballot does to resolve your harm, and how offense gets weighed under your framework.
Don’t run tricks - auto loss and 20 speaks. In general, I consider tricks to be blippy arguments intentionally tailored to deceive your opponent and avoid engagement to generate independent offense.
Disclosure is good. New affs don't need to be disclosed.
Miscellaneous Thoughts
debate is a performance
tech > truth within reason
brief off-time roadmaps please
>30 seconds to send the dock = running prep + docking speaks
flex prep = dock speaks
going over time = dock speaks (finish your thought, but don’t push it)
judge kick = dock speaks
Speaker Points
30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater
29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery
29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery
28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise
27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills
<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.
Stop Entering Unqualified Judges
I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of quality judging that some programs provide to cover their obligation. Debaters work hard for high-level competition and that effort becomes futile when the judge pool lacks quality judging. If you're a progressive debater or your team regularly competes on the national circuit, but your judges are not of that level, expect me to give less in terms of my investment in judging you. Yes, some programs cannot provide these judges for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the lack of training or preparing the judges you do provide irks me. If you are providing judges for a national tournament that have little experience in debate, especially circuit debate, and it is clear they are not properly trained, this note applies to you. I will invest in judging you as much as you invested providing quality judging for the tournament. If you have a problem with this, please strike me.
A non-comprehensive list of judges like this include (from Colton Gilbert):
- parent judges
- lay judges
- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)
- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss
I am NOT against parent/lay judges in progressive debates, IF they are trained to adjudicate that type of argumentation. If you want to talk about it, I'm happy to have a civil discussion about it AFTER the RFD.
People who’ve significantly influenced my views on debate: Byron Arthur (especially), Aaron Timmons (especially), Jonathan Alston (especially), Bennett Eckert, Colton Gilbert, Chetan Hertzig, Anna Myers, Temitope Ogundare, Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Hannah Stafford, Chris Vincent, Ed Williams