Tabroom.com

Lexington Virtual JV Round Robin

2024 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Moselle Burke Fenway High School

Last changed on Sun July 7, 2024 at 10:35 AM EST

Please add mosieburkebdl@gmail.com to the email chain.

Hello! My name is Mosie (MO-zee), he/him/his. Please use my name instead of “judge”.

Personal and professional background:

I debated for Boston Latin Academy from 2011-2017, and was part of the first team from the Boston Debate League (UDL) to break to Varsity elimination rounds on the national circuit, bid, and qualify to the TOC. I attended Haverford College (B.A. Philosophy, Statistics minor) for my undergraduate studies and Northeastern University (MBA/M.S. Accounting) for graduate school. I currently work as an accountant for a software company in the Boston area. Liv Birnstad and I co-coach the Boston Debate League’s Travel Team, which is composed of students from multiple schools within the Boston UDL.

Short Version:

-Offense-Defense.

-I have experience judging and coaching traditional policy, Kritik, and Performance styles.

-High familiarity with many literature bases for Kritiks. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you.

-I have prioritized developing my understanding of counterplan strategies and competition theory, and I am a better judge for CP/Disad strategies than I have been in previous seasons.

-All speeds OK, please prioritize your flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

***********************************************

I have judged 1 national circuit tournament and 2 local/non-circuit tournaments on the intellectual property topic. I coach and write arguments of all styles on the intellectual property topic.

***********************************************

Longer Version:

Style

Speed is fine, but it should not come at the expense of clarity or flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

I welcome rounds with numerous off-case positions, but keep in mind that I flow on paper and I need pen time.

Make my job easy! If you bury important arguments in an unclear wall of noise because you’re speeding through your blocks, I probably won’t catch them. Example: if your 2AC frontline against a core counterplan includes 4-5 uncarded arguments before you read evidence, you should read those uncarded arguments more slowly than you would read the highlighted lines in a card.

Cross-examination should be conducted intentionally and strategically. It should not be an attempt to phrase gross mischaracterizations of your opponents’ arguments as questions. Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. CX where both debaters are continuously talking at the same time is a pet peeve.

The 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and focus on condensing the debate where possible. They should not just be a list of semi-conceded arguments.

In the absence of guidance from tournament admin I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping, improper citation, and misrepresentation of evidence.

Please take steps to minimize tech delays. Set up the email chain and check your internet connection before the round start time. You should be able to reply-all and attach a document without significantly delaying the round. Putting cards in a doc before your speech is prep time.

Case

I love a robust case debate! Neg teams should aim to have a variety of arguments on each important case page. Impact defense usually isn’t sufficient to contest an advantage scenario on its own. State good usually isn’t a sufficient case answer against a K aff. Most 2NRs should spend time on the case.

I find alt cause arguments more persuasive than recutting solvency evidence to make a counterplan that addresses the alt causes.

Please extend the substance of your case arguments, instead of “dropped A1 means nuke war, case outweighs on magnitude.”

Overviews should accomplish specific goals, and if your overview does not have a purpose I would rather it not be present in your speech. If there is a lengthy overview on a flow, please tell me during your roadmap.

Topicality & Theory

I love these debates when they are intentional and clever, and I strongly dislike these debates when they’re just an exercise in reading blocks. I was a 1N who took the T page in every round, and I will appreciate your strategic concessions, decisionmaking, and tricks.

I will vote on theory arguments if you win them. If your theory argument is silly, I will find it less persuasive and it will be more difficult to win.

Kritiks

I am well-versed in most K literature frequently used in debates (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author). This has 2 important implications for K teams:

1. I will know what you’re talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory. I will reward solid understanding of theoretical nuances that are relevant to your K if you communicate them and use them strategically.

2. I will not extrapolate the details of your theory for you. It is important that you clearly communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology, so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important.

In Policy aff vs K 2NR debates, the team that wins framework will usually win the round.

Counterplans

I’ve recently made a significant effort to improve my understanding of these debates after identifying it as a weak point in my judging and coaching abilities. I have a new appreciation for competition debates, process CPs, conditionality, and the like, and I’m looking forward to judging more counterplan/disad strategies! Please slow down a little on the frontlines that are rapid-fire analytics and the 2AC/2NC theory blocks.

I can conceptually come to terms with 2NC counterplans in response to 2AC add-ons, but I don’t like them very much, and I would prefer to avoid debates that require new cards going into the 2NR/2AR.

On theory debates about counterplan planks, perm severance & intrinsicness, etc. I will default to reject the argument until you make an argument for reject the team.

Disadvantages & Impact Comparison

I want to understand your scenario as early in the debate as possible, so please make it clear and explain the link chain. You should have an explanation of the story of the disadvantage that is as concrete and jargon-free as possible, especially at the top of the 2NR.

Impact comparison should be composed of persuasive arguments, not a magnitude-probability-timeframe-turns case checklist.

Anagha Chakravarti Lexington HS

Mark Cherches McDonogh

Dani Chung Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 8:31 AM EST

Hi! I'm Diane (you can call me by my nickname Dani), and I'm a high school policy debater at Lexington High School, MA.

Add me to the email chain: dnchngtwn@gmail.com

In Round (General)

1) Be clear when you read. I'm guessing that you're not going to spread, but whether you do it or not, be clear. I won't hesitate to say "clearer". And if you don't make your speaking clearer, you're getting low speaks.

2) Do NOT run 10+ offs. I don't think that's productive for an educational debate (and I believe in education). So if you run that many, I will probably give you low speaks.

3) Signpost. For example, If you're giving the 1NC, make sure you say "First off is the states CP....Next off is the IRS DA....etc". Also, every time you move on from one card to the next, say "next" or "and" or anything that makes it clear that you're reading a new card.

4) Be polite! This is a round, and nobody is debating to hurt each others' feelings. If I hear any concerning remarks, I will give you LOW speaks.

Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended within the context of the round. Engage in the fw debate by directly weighing your standards against your opponents. I won't vote on fairness as a voter, but if you explain why fairness is an I/L to education (the impact), then I would vote on education.

One-off FW: I don't like these debates. But if you MUST, make the debate clear and easy to understand because if you spread analytics, I probably won't be able to flow everything. But truly, try to avoid having these debates as a novice. I don't think you're ready for them.

Theory and T: Make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. Actually take time to impact it out in the 2NR by clearly articulating your standards and voters. T, for me, is pretty easy to vote on: if you run something that doesn't apply to the aff at all or the aff meets your interp, I will probably not vote for it unless the aff somehow drops it. This gets to my 2nd point - NEVER DROP THEORY OR T. This is a voting issue.

DA: UQ is very important, but it's often not debated often. If it's a UQ card from 2018, it's most likely non-unique and even if you argue everything else well I won't vote on the DA.

CP: Do impact calc, emphasize the internal/external net benefit so that it's even clear to a middle-schooler. Then I will believe that the CP is net better. Also, try not to run a CP with 5 planks, that's not good for clash, and it's a tactic that novices are not capable of handling.

K: I am familiar with basic, generic Ks (like cap and setcol), but I don't really know high theory like Baudrillard. I tend to lean towards policy so I don't like Ks but if you HAVE to run it bc you know nothing else, one suggestion: KNOW YOUR K. I only say this because there are a lot of novices who take varsity stuff and read it without properly understanding. Know the link, the impact, and the alt. Also aff you should never drop FW or else I would default neg even though they did a terrible job explaining the K. But remember that FW is not everything, so make arguments along with FW. Also, don't kick the alt.

K affs: Don't read it if you're a novice. I will automatically assume that you don't really know what you're saying.

McAlister Clabaugh Washington Urban Debate League

Last changed on Tue November 5, 2024 at 8:27 AM EST

Email: mcalister.clabaugh@wudl.org

I was a pretty successful high school debater and a pretty unsuccessful college debater in the 1990s, then judged probably 10-12 tournaments on the national high school circuit. Stepped away from debate for about 20 years, then started judging again in 2016 as a volunteer for the Washington UDL, judging around 5 tournaments/year since then.

I'm a big fan of debate, as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills, and as a competition, and coming back as a volunteer and now UDL staff member has been rewarding for me, and hopefully helpful for the students I've judged and worked with outside of rounds.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. For example, a 1NC that labels their off-case arguments as "Off" before reading them makes it harder for me to flow the round than a 1NC that announces "Capitalism kritik," or "Politics disad," etc. 1NCs that don't label off-case arguments will get lower speaker points. Same for case arguments - please let me know where on case - solvency, advantage one, advantage two, framing, etc.

I have some experience judging kritik affs, and while I've followed their evolution in debate over the last several years, I'm not particularly current or knowledgeable on some of the theory issues around them. I'd like to change that, but if you run kritik affs, there are probably some issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created, and ones that have an educational purpose, but I'm not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides.

I have and will vote on neg kritiks, and am more likely to do so if the neg demonstrates in speeches and CX that they have a thorough understanding of their position and its grounding - more than repeating taglines in the neg block & 2NR. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters. I've been impressed by the evolution of kritiks in terms of how they're organized and how teams execute them, both on the aff and neg. I'm also somewhat surprised by how frequently teams seem unprepared to debate kritiks that are run against them.

I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory, and the IP topic touches on a lot of issues that I've worked on professionally, debated before, or have personal interests and curiosity about.

On issues like solvency and advantages/disads, I'm a big fan of specificity and mechanisms through which A leads to B leads to C, and how/why that happens. Internal links matter. A good analytical highlighting a missing internal link is a good argument.

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives. That said, on T, theory, framework debates, my experience has been teams that read their generic blocks and don't adapt in-round to the specific warrants of the K do not do particularly well. Especially on these kinds of debates, clash is essential.

I prefer clash over a race for offense with tons of dropped arguments on both sides. Good impact calc - on any kind of argument - that compares aff vs neg impacts is a quick way to win the ballot. Reiterating your impacts without comparisons is not particularly effective.

2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made.

Good luck.

Danielle Dupree Capital City

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 8:47 AM EST

Danielle Dupree - danielle.dupree@wudl.org- she/her

23 y/o DMV Debater & WUDL Program Coordinator/ Tournament Director

The things you're probably looking for...

Speed:

I've got auditory processing issues so - a comfortable speed is fine if you slow down on tags & analytics. If you speed through analytics,please include any analytics in whatever you send me, otherwise don't hate me if you're unclear and it doesn't get flowed. I think not sending analytics is a cheap and annoying tactic that doesn't throw off your opponent as much as it throws off your judge. Fair warning!

Kritiks:

Preference for K debate. I mostly have experience in antiblackness and femme noire literature, so any other theses should take more care to explain in round vs real-world impacts & implementations. If you have not been able to explain the thesis in your own words with no jargon by the end of the round, I'm probably not voting on it.

If claiming something is a reason to reject the team, it's essential to go beyond explaining their wrongdoing and clarify why rejection is justified and beneficial otherwise to me, it's just a reason to reject the arg.

Performance:

I love an unconventional debate when it's done well, meaning make it abundantly clear why your form of debate is necessary. If you're doing a half-baked performance it is a lot harder for me to give you solvency/framing and 90% of my RFD will probably be about how I wished you had sung me a song or stood on a desk and did a little dance, etc.

Theory:

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped. My general stance on the most common theory args can be swayed, I have voted against my preference when convinced. However, it's harder to sway me on Condo - I think 3 conditional positions are where I'm comfortable voting on Condo. Also, on performative contradictions - neg gets multiple worlds & contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

My Strategy Reminders...

Tech VS Truth: If your strategy for every round is winning based on tech over truth or vice versa, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

Shadow Extending: I don't flow authors and I don't re-read evidence post-round unless instructed. So don't just extend your 'John 22' card without reminding me of the warrant. (I do flow authors for novices, but I still expect the warrants)

Usage of Artificial Intelligence: This needs a lot of exploring in the world generally but also in Policy Debate so I'm open to opposition with warrants. For now, I'll say I'm fine with pre-written overviews done by AI so long as it's disclosed that it was AI. However, the use of AI mid-round is cheating in my opinion.

Stolen from McAlister C: " 2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and what assessments I should be making. I love overviews that crystallize 2-3 key points and compare aff/neg positions before going to individual args/line-by-line."

Timing: PLEASE I'm not great with keeping your prep so be sure you're also keeping it yourself. - Also I stop flowing as soon as the time goes off, pls don't try to shove your last arg in after the alarm

Cross: Cross is binding. The only time I will insist on closed cross is if someone's going mav. I do like it when you stand but again it's not mandatory.

Topicality: Violation & definition are never enough, no limits & grounds, no case. I appreciate creative violations and T's that are brought into the real world. ALSO pls tell me where you want me to flow things if you're a cross-apply warrior.

FW & ROB/J: I default the actor of the policymaker unless directed otherwise. If you are going to direct me otherwise, I'd suggest the sooner the better.

Troll: I need to hear BOTH teams enthusiastically consenting to a troll round, otherwise at the end of the round you will lose.

All of that is to say, do whatever you want, just make sure you work hard on it, be respectful and make it fun for all of us :)

Amanda Gao The Bronx High School Of Science

Forrest Gertin Forest Park

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:39 AM EST

Please add to email chain: fjgertin@bcps.k12.md.us

Overall:

I vote based on my understanding of the round. That being said, speed is fine, but I enjoy having some differentiation in tone. I do believe that there is value in remembering that this is a speech activity. Performing your speech reminds me that you are talking about something very important. There is a limit to useful speed.

I like good debates, and I reward debaters that have intelligent affirmatives with specific internal link stories and introduce impact stories. I also like debates where the negative creates crafty negative strategies that demonstrate a grasp of the case and how to beat the case specifically having a link story that shows the inherent problems specific to that affirmative. Performance/alternative debates that really teach and demonstrate impact are welcome!

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

DA, CP, Case- The evidence is key. Good evidence had better actually be good if you are calling on me to read it at the end of the round. Having a super power tagged card that isn't warranted could cost you the debate.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Reja Haddad Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 5:57 AM EST

I would like to be on the email chain:

@gmail.com m325rh <---switch these around, I do this so I don't get spam

General debate things:

Try to make the round as easy for me to vote on as possible, at least 20 seconds at the top of your last speech to tell me what to look at so I know what you think I need to look at more closely and the general story of the round to help me make sense of my flow. I like lots of judge direction and really don’t like making up connections for you, so a great way to make sure I’m looking at it the way you are, telling me a clear rfd would be very helpful

I’ve been debating on this topic for a while so I’ll probably know most of the stuff you’re talking about, but I won’t do any work for you so make sure you make it clear what you’re talking about and how it applies to the round.

When I say open cross one partner does like everything, so until I delete this from my paradigm I'll be asking for closed cross.

I will default to utilitarianism and debate being a game unless told otherwise

Tech>truth

Case:

Please do some case debating please. I’m down to vote neg on some nice link turns and things like that. There isn’t nearly enough case debating around and I think that is a wasted opportunity, affs get away with murder and I would love for them to be called out.

DA:

Very strong on this topic; I like a clean story that makes it easy to understand what I’m voting for. Using the disad to take out case solvency is awesome, just make sure it’s clear what specific parts of case you’re taking out.

CP:

I don’t generally love counterplans on this topic, but if you can make it competitive and theoretically justifiable then I would love to vote on a solid counterplan.

Please extent an interp, violation, and standards clearly in your overviews.

Make sure to do impact calc with your standards. Why does fairness/clash/education matter? Why do you access their standards better?

Make sure to explain the thesis clearly so I understand it, otherwise, if the other team explains it in a way that makes sense I'll believe them.

Make sure you extend all parts of the K unless you want to kick the alt in which case go for it, I'll be down to vote on basically any way you want to read it as long as I understand what I'm voting for

Kaffs

Making the thesis clear and weighing against T is your best way to my ballot. I'm down to vote for it but you must make sure my ballot does something, or if it does nothing why it should still go to you, and say why the TVA doesn't let you read your theory or why reading it under the TVA takes out some form of solvency

I'm also down to vote on rev rev debates, but try not to make it too messy

I'll default to fairness being an impact, but you are welcome to say why it's not or why whatever you do outweigh

Theory

Condo is a reason to reject the team, for anything else you'll need to give reasons to get it up to that threshold.

Needs an interp, a violation, and standards, every single time or I won't evaluate it (this goes for things like severance too)

Make sure to slow down a bit if you know you are fast

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EST

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.

LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Sodardhorn Khen The Bronx High School Of Science

Jamie Levitan Lexington HS

Jim Menick Lexington HS

Maguene Moussavou Lexington HS

Last changed on Fri September 13, 2024 at 8:13 PM EST

Maguene (Muh-hane) Moussavou

Lexington '25

Email: immaculatebaboon@gmail.com - add me to the email chain please have it ready before the round starts

Email chain title: "Tournament name - round number - team [AFF] vs team [NEG]"

Top level comments

PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE EFFICIENT---AS LITTLE DOWNTIME AS POSSIBLE! (I will boost speaks for both teams) TIME YOUR PREP, SEND OUT THE EMAIL CHAIN ON ROUND START

Start The Round on Time.

Nothing in this paradigm matters too much, don't try to change how you debate to appeal to what you think I want to see based on my paradigm, do what you do and I'll evaluate it

Give me an easy way to vote for you -- judge instruction is VERY GOOD and needed in final rebuttal -- We both don't want judge intervention which is the alternative if I'm not given instruction

Give a roadmap before every speech, it's very helpful for organizing my flow and would look like, "first the IRS DA, CP, then case", say "and" or "next" to signal when you're going onto another card

Please signpost it makes the flow a lot less hard to evaluate post-round, this looks like saying when you're going onto a different argument or answering the opposing teams argument ("Now the counterplan") or flagging the subpoints you're answering (ie. in 2nc saying: "2ac 4...") helps me know directly what you're answering on the flow

top of 2nd rebuttal: why you win the round (15-30 seconds at most)

TECH >TRUTH, If you need to give up speed to be clear do that especially when online

Big fan of clash and line by line with sufficient warranting as opposed to meaningless one liners

I will pretty much vote on anything if it's debated well as long as its not problematic - I will not vote on it if it is barely in the rebuttal speeches (ie. I will not vote on multi-actor fiat if it's only 5 seconds of the 1ar)

Teams should demonstrate strategic decision making, for the neg that's how they collapse the debate in the block and not going for everything in the 2nr, on the Aff its understanding must-wins and pieces you don't really have to answer coming out of the block/grouping arguments

Overall I'm fine for any argumentation and what reads below are just thoughts.

Policy Affs: I read a policy aff my entire novice+sophomore year and now switch off between policy and k-affs - They are obviously a good argument. Affs should stay consistent with explanation of solvency throughout the round and neg teams should hold them to cx responses better.

CPs - It is definitely possible to get really creative with CPs and that's what makes them fun. Adv CPs good. PICs are probably theoretically illegitimate without a VERY GOOD reason as to why the reading of a certain word or idea is bad. Fine voting on condo, judge kick is good

DAs - Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are really bad. I can vote aff on 0 risk of the DA. If you’re pairing the DA with the CP, make sure to explain why the CP doesn't link to the DA. This applies to nay other argument but do more than just regular impact calc but actually compare the DA impacts to the other impacts in the round and why I should prioritize. If there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w

T - I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp not just "they dropped x." I'm not opposed to voting on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad.

K - Usually Affs lose when they go for the perm because it is virtually impossible without sufficient no link or a link turn. Instead, focus on extinction o/w, disproving the theory and winning that fairness matters and O/W.

I have an extremely low aff threshold for winning vs nonblack teams reading pess

On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is so very important, the more specific the better and it means you get out of what they'll say on FW. Alts are usually bad, try to make yours actually say/do something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links.

FW/T-USFG - Fairness can be an impact or internal link, neg teams should go for clash, education, or testing a lot more. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I really need good impact framing for this. A compelling neg team on this will explain what makes a fair debate, how the opps impeded this, how their model ensures fairness and why that matters for things like participation, debateability, etc.

K-affs: These can be really interesting with all the ways they can be deployed creatively outside just a preempt to FW, although having the 1AC be about 60-75% a FW preempt is strategic, I prefer these to have a coherent argument and also a justification for why talking about the aff is preferable to talking about IPR, I think the justifications for not defending the topic are far stronger this year than last. Aff teams should aim to impact turn other FW standards like clash and education I'm familiar with most content so run whatev. Debate is a game, can impact subjectivities

Theory

I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Generally, I think perf con is not a voter (but can be a TKO to the K on subjectivity) and TOO much condo is bad but I can be EASILY swayed in the other directions.

Show me your flows after round for +.1 speaks

Ishaan Tipirneni has had a profound influence on my debate views, he has aided me greatly in achieving my 2x TOC Qual, and has bestowed upon me a vast wealth of knowledge to aid my understanding of debate, thus, I vehemently agree with every aspect of this intelligent mans paradigm

Janet Novack Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:13 PM EST

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

Charles Sloat Lexington HS

Benjamin Witkov Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2024 at 3:18 AM EST

Lexington High School

George Mason '29

He/They

capk2nr[at]gmail.com

TLDR

Tech > Everything

I am solely interested in the technical evaluation of your arguments from the start of the 1AC until the end of the 2AR. I don't care if you read 13 off or a planless aff because my ideological predispositions have no place on the flow. Well thought out strategies will undoubtedly be rewarded with speaker points.

You'll like me if you can out-debate your opponent without forcing me to fill in gaps. You should strike me and do impromptu if you think ethos/appeals to rational thought relinquish the need to do line by line.

I will only refuse to evaluate arguments if Tabroom tells me, it's an ad-hom on your opponent, it's new in the 2AR, or it relates to any of the isms.

You will get an L + 0 if you engage in blatant -ism/phobia, or encourage those in round to harm themselves. The latter doesn't exclude wipeout, it excludes encouraging your opponents to swerve into traffic.

Decision Process

I will find the quickest path to the ballot solely based on my flow. This entails:

1. Determining what impacts matter most

2. Finding who resolves those impacts

3. Resolving any questions that implicate who solves those impacts

If I cannot decide who won the debate after step three, I am forced to:

1. Fill in warrants for warrantless claims made in rebuttals

2. Use "truth" to break the tie

If I'm forced to do anything outside of my flow, you only have yourself to blame for my decision.

Everything below are my ideological predispositions/views on debate, and what I default to. My opinions are irrelevant so long as you’re technically ahead on the flow. I’m only including these because everyone has bias, and I’d rather you know mine than assume I have none or “hack” in your way.

Policy

—Main Stuff—

I want a card doc, but I’ll only read what you tell me to or evidence that’s contested in a way which requires me to read it.

Absent framing, I default to utilitarian calculus. S-risks come first, followed by existential risks, and everything else.

If you read an incomplete argument (DA with no UQ), I'm very amenable to new 1AR answers.

1AR Cards are fine & encouraged.

My bar for dismissing evidence that doesn't support a claim is very low.

I read evidence during the 1AC and off case part of the 1NC. This is both for my own curiosity and to understand what's going on.

You can insert re-highlighted evidence. I encourage you to do so if your opponents are reading bad cards.

The idea that breaking a new aff gives the neg a blank check is ridiculous. If the aff is topical, you should be able to debate it. If it's abusive, go for T.

—Counterplans—

I don't judgekick by default unless told to do so or that the status quo is a logical option.
Functional competition alone is best.

Generic theory debates are boring, but I love specific interpretations.

2NC Counterplans are good regardless of their function.

I lean neg on all CP theory except fiating outside of the USFG. I’m probably 50/50 for the latter.

You don’t need a solvency advocate, but I think it places a limit on how much aff solvency you can capture. CPs without a solvency advocate that include the mandate of the plan probably justify new 1AR arguments once elaborated upon.

I heavily err neg on condo if debated evenly.

If & Only If counterplans are some of the dumbest arguments in debate.

Offsets probably falls in second place.

—Disads and Case—

Zero risk is possible, but requires extensive framing, dropped terminal defense, or the aff pointing out a DA is utter nonsense and being correct.

I don’t understand the hate politics DAs get on many topics, they’re often reasonable consequences to the plan

Rider DAs are illogical nonesense. So is the “logical policymaker” argument.

Fiating in offense should be done more.

I have a soft spot in my heart for impact turns that challenge conventional wisdom, but I certainly won’t cut a blank check for their lackluster explanations. Likewise, if you can’t explain why genocide good or wipeout are terrible ideas, you don’t deserve to win.

Direct impact comparison is a lost, but important art.

I don’t ever see myself voting on presumption against a policy aff absent an egregious technical mistake.

—Kritiks v Policy—

If you expect me to “hack” either way, you don’t want me in the back for this debate. I’m much better for the K than my wiki would suggest, a majority of my 2NRs against policy and K teams up until my senior year was the Kritik, usually cap and a ballot k respectively. Likewise, I exclusively ran a policy aff and almost always went for framework in the 1AR. This is my long winded way of saying don’t strike me if you go for the K often, and don’t pref me as a 1 if you think I’ll cut a blank check to framework.

My only caveat is that I don’t want to listen to your 6 min overview. If you debate like this, strike me.

I always start with framework in these debates. I think you link you lose is unpersuasive, and so is aff fw that excludes Ks. I won’t default to a middle ground interp, but you should make one.

More teams should use framework as a defense to aff theory interps.

See the section on planless affs for my thoughts on fairness/clash.

I don’t see how an alt beats the perm + doublebind if the neg loses framework absent egregious debating.

Links will almost never be “unique to the plan”, and I think it’s ridiculous to assume they will be.

Ontology is a pretty nonsensical justification to conclude everyone should be willing to die, but aff teams often let the neg get away with murder in these kinds of debates.

Floating PIKs justify new 1AR answers. Actual PIKs should be flagged as such.

—Ks v Kaffs—

2Ns should be willing to go for these more often, and 2As should have much better answers to most of these.

”No perms in a methods debate” makes no sense to me.

I really like strong turns case debating in these kinds of debates.

I think Ks that devolve into the oppression Olympics in KvK debates are both illogical and uncomfortable to judge. Hopefully you win gold!

—Planless Affs—

I’m a good judge for framework debates. I really like high quality ones too. If debated evenly, I’m much better for the negative because I find it hard to reconcile aff offense, but that never happens. I much prefer a “debate about models” rather than “voting neg solves this round’s unfairness”.

Fairness is the best impact in most instances imo, but clash is fine too & better in some debates.

Debating the magnitude of fairness/predictability lost will help you get my ballot

I’m good for both impact turn and counter interp strategies.

I’ll cringe if you tell me reading T is analogous to a horrific historical event. If you honestly believe this, you need serious help.

The ballot decides a winner and a loser, and I’m unsure why it does anything else. Answering this question is the easiest path to victory infront of me for aff teams. I have no reservations voting on presumption if you can’t answer this question.

Debate is undoubtedly a game, but it’s also more than a game.

I think more teams should be willing to go for DAs against planless affs that view the topic as bad because there’s a logical opportunity cost to the end point of their advocacy

—T v policy affs—

I default to competing interps, but I think in most instances I err slightly aff on reasonability.

Limits are almost always good, but to what extent is anyone’s guess

PTIV is nonsensical, and taken to its logical conclusion would justify PICs out of areas in a topic with subsets the aff doesn’t defend.

Precision is probably better than predictability

Novices

Show me your flows after the round and I'll give you +0.5 speaks so long as there's any effort in them.

Be nice to each other and refrain from demeaning your opponents

For policy stuff, see above.

I honestly have no idea how this event works unless you treat it as one person policy, so be warned.

I'm familiar with Kant to some degree. I won't know your buzzwords, but I can follow along.

I'm fine with "tricks" so long as there's a warrant I can read back in an RFD.

The bar for dismissing an RVI is below hell.

Evidence ethics in PF is abysmal. Rounds must always have an email chain or speechdrop, use properly cited evidence that's sent out before you read it, and neither side should paraphrase. Instant L + 27 if you don't adhere to these. If your coaches have a problem with this, they can scream into the void and strike me in the future. The paraphrasing rule doesn't apply to novices.

No new arguments in second summary, and no new weighing in final focus.

Treat me like a hypertech and read whatever. I'm down for hidden spark, random ks, or your tech case.

The only exception to the above are "counter-resolutions", or anything that tries to introduce fiat. If these are your jam, policy and LD are next door.

I know disclosure theory is a legitimate thing in PF, so I'm more amenable to it as opposed to other events

+0.3 If you opensource, tell me after the second final focus.

I don’t care if your partner does all the talking, but I won’t boost either of your speaks if you give a phenomenal cross, and I’ll tank them harder if you give a poor CX.

I write down important stuff from CX, but it only matters if you bring it into your speeches.

Assertiveness and light aggressiveness are fine, but should be universal (I.E you’re as aggressive to male and female debaters). I try to assume good faith as much as possible, especially between novices.

If your CX strategy hinges on being blatantly rude because you’re reading certain arguments or being a mean person, strike me and take anger management classes.

If there’s a clear skill discrepancy between teams, please be kind.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.7, adjusted based on the tournament and event.

If you ask for a 30, you won't get one even if the other team drops an argument that devolves into getting thirty speaks.

Concluding Thoughts

I'm excited to judge yall! Seriously, I love this activity and have devoted swathes of my time to it. I’ll do everything I can to give you a good decision

Feel free to post round. If you’re rude, I’ll reciprocate.

If I look confused/dumbfounded, I probably am.

Eleanora Lawrence and Brendon Morris taught me how to debate, and I’m endlessly grateful to the both of them for helping me succeed in debate.

Login to Tabroom

Lexington Virtual JV Round Robin

2024 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges