Lexington Winter Invitational
2023 — Lexington, MA/US
Novice LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi, I'm Ariv Ahuja (He/Him). I'm a fourth-year senior debater for Lexington High school. I compete on the national and local debate circuits.
You are responsible to time your and your opponent's speeches.
Give me an off-time road map before your speeches.
Arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact. Implicate all your arguments and why they matter.
I'm cool with speed if your opponent is cool with it. Just make sure you're speaking clearly.
In your final speeches make sure you weigh and collapse. Think about the round in terms of offense and defense. Also, try to clearly frame the round towards the end - tell me why you won.
Be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc.
Preferably don't read stuff you don't understand.
I strongly discourage reading Ks/Theory/Tricks etc. against novices. If it's a trick or theory shell that is clearly explained I might vote on it, but my threshold for responses on these will be pretty low.
Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.
I will disclose the ballot and speaks if you ask and the tournament allows.
In short, I will evaluate whatever arguments are in the round with an open mind. Although I might not be familiar with the Phil or Kritikal literature you running so do your best to explain it. I recommend just reading what your comfortable with.
The quick prefs are in terms of how good I am at evaluating those arguments
Theory - 1
I read a lot of disclosure and ran all sorts of theory arguments, I think friv is ok but it's obviously harder to win.
Trix - 1
I also read a decent amount of these. Make sure there warranted and extended and I'll probably vote on it.
Policy - 1
Debated a lot of policy, so I am pretty familiar with these.
Phil - 3
I probably won't understand much other than Kant, although I'll try my best.
K - 3
I read a couple of K's the ones I'm most comfortable with are Abelism and Physco. I also understand the generic K's, Set Col, Security, Afropess etc.
Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.
Hi! I'm Mattew (not a typo) Anazco, and I'm a senior at Harrison High School in Harrison, NY. I transferred to Harrison from Staples High School in Westport, CT, where I did 3 years of traditional Lincoln-Douglas debate for a local league program before coming to Harrison. I'm not an active member of Harrison's team, but I'm familiar with the fundamentals of debate. I'm currently committed to Cornell University in the College of Engineering, but my heart remains with debate!
I want to see rounds with genuine clash and arguments with warrants that are fleshed out. I want to see clear reasons you link to a framework on both sides - otherwise, I won't have a clear way to evaluate the round. Please give voting issues, and don't use debate jargon or spread! I will do my best to evaluate the round based on what you tell me. Be sure to extend the warrants for your cards, not just the names. Real world examples and statistics are helpful.
Have a great round!
for email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Email : email@example.com
I am open to hearing just about anything as long as you know your argument well enough to explain it as if I was a child. Do not run arguments that you are not comfortable with as it will lower your speaker points and just ruin the debate.
Give me a clear line on how I should frame my ballot. What does having the ballot mean for you?
Be sure to engage in framework throughout the round and let me know reasons to prefer yours. I will not do the work for you.
I did Policy Debate for four years in high-school, and have been involved with coaching and judging since.
I am new to judging LD Debate, but have observed rounds before. If there are common terms that you may use that are abbreviated just let me know the first couple of times so I know what you are referencing.
You can speak at a moderate speed. I will not pretend that I know what you are saying. If you are not clear I will put down my pen. I will say clear three times then stop flowing.
- Use your evidence to answer arguments and do a line by line, you do not have to read 1000 cards that all say the same thing.
- Have structure, tell me what flow I should be putting your arguments on and what you are answering, this creates a cleaner debate.
- Ask good questions that are conclusive and give you links in CX
Hello! My name is Addy.
I have been a high school debater for three years, so I can deal with some tech in rounds, but I would prefer to judge mostly lay.
Clash, speak clearly, and convince me of your arguments. No spreading.
Hello, my name is Joji Avirachan.
Please keep your delivery slow and clear, and refrain from spreading.
In the final focus, I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win.
Before your speeches, please provide me with an off-time road map.
Lexington HS '23. Eight career bids in LD. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Make sure to be clear. I will not vote on arguments that I didn't hear in previous speeches which means your spreading needs to be understandable.
Most familiar with pretty much any theory/phil strategy, 1AR restarts, etc. but would prefer to judge policy rounds.
I love creative K affs but winning against framework means convincing me how your specific research practice isn't motivated by fairness. For framework debaters, the clash 2NR just seems more articulate, but I have no problem voting on the fairness 2NR.
Honestly, any type of argument done right gets my ballot. the sillier the argument, the harder to do right, but done right = higher speaker points
Hi there! My name is Vicki Childs and I am the mom of two novice debaters.
I am relatively new to judging and only started judging LD this school year. I am still learning the ropes so I would ask that debaters keep their own timing, and also, please don't spread - I'm not quite ready for that yet! Please keep debate jargon and theory to a minimum, and finally please be respectful to everyone in the room.
Harrison High School '22
Include me on the email chain please: email@example.com
Hey! I'm James Cox (He/Him), and I'm currently a senior at Harrison High School, in Harrison, New York. I primarily compete on the national circuit, but I am also familiar with the traditional debate. If I am judging you, you're likely a novice, in which case below are some things that I'd like to see in the round. If you are a more advanced novice, please don't try to debate "circuit" just because you think I want to see that. I am tech>truth for the most part, but I have 0 tolerance for racism, sexism, etc., and I have no problem dropping someone if an argument is made that is harmful to other bodies within the space.
If you and your opponent are frequently competing on the national circuit, here is the link to Chetan Hertzig's paradigm. I agree with 99 percent of everything said here.
Hertzig's Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml
1. WEIGH. YOUR. IMPACTS. PLEASE. Novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)
2. Signpost! Please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when you're responding to your opponent's.
3. Give voters! Write my ballot for me.
if you have any questions about anything written here, please email me or ask before the round! Debating as a novice can be scary, so I'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs.
Phone #: 917-582-2788
Hey, I’m David Duan and I have been debating on the national LD circuit for 3 years now. I also dabbled in PF for a couple of months (as a joke…). You can basically run any argument and I’ll vote for it as long as it has a clear link chain and impact.
- +0.1 speaks if you share your case with me before the round
I appreciate clear extensions and will not vote on any argument not extended through the final speech
I value strategic concessions, don’t try to go for everything; you only need one argument to win the ballot
If you are reading precut responses make sure you understand them and are able to respond to the rebuttals
- WEIGH!!! Explain to me why your impacts or arguments are more important than your opponents
I love a strategic usage of Cross-fire in order to get your opponent to concede args
Remember to sign-post (tell me where you are on the flow and which arg you are responding to)
Don't cheat or miscut evidence
At the end of the day, a win or a loss doesn't actually mean anything. Don't over-invest into the ballot - it doesn't mean anything about you as a person or a debater - it just determines who won a particular round, so relax and try to enjoy yourself. Given this, I also expect that debaters are respectful to each other and everyone in the round. Additionally, feel free to tell me if I'm doing something/acting in a way that makes you feel unwelcome, either during the RFD or during a round.
WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP ON ASKING IF IM A PARENT JUDGE???? I DONT HAVE ANY KIDS!!!??
A little bit about me: I am a proud father of twelve, Geo-Conservative, strict federalist Republican, pro-lifer, and a faithful believer of Christ. I used to do high school Lincoln-Douglas in the 80's back when the activity was in its prime. I was on the judging panel when Steven Douglas defeated Abraham Lincoln, just so you know that I am serious. I was also the champion of the Kentucky local county championships in Dramatic Oratory where I beat my archnemesis Gertrude on a 5-0 decision.
When I was in high school, I debated for the Young Republican's club where I advocated against climate change along with my peers. Please do not read warming bad, as it reminds me of this little Gen-Z-er named Greta Thunberg whom I find very generally suspicious. However, if you must refer to "climate change" or any things that could possibly trigger me and remind me of the elections back in '12, please censor it and refer to it by the "c-word." I have a PhD in philosophy and I care for the quality of your arguments over the quantity.
Here are some of my preferences:
- try not to AFFIRM becuz i have NEVER voted AFF!!! i don't liek eating TURKEYS or NATO !!! you may see that i have AFFIRMED in the past but that is because i DONT know how to use TABROOM !!! if you are AFF good LUCK trying to WIN the ROUND but you will never WIN so if you FORFEIT in ADVANCE i will give u ?THIRTY spekas!! for bravery because CHIVALRY is not DEAD!!!!!!1!!
- don't read DISEASE impacts in FRONT of me!!!! there is NOTHING that can't be solved with ESSENTIAL OILS !!! so these arguments are all FALSE!!!!
- why do people keep on telling me to FLOW??? that is for RIVERS ONLY!!!! know your PLACE in This World!!!!
- why do ppl keep on asking me if i've ever sat on a panel??? why would i sit on a panell when i could STAND?? i am very health conscious!
- SPREADING!!! is NOT okay!! debat is abt COMMUNICASHON!!1! we are not in gymanstics class!! do not spread, the round is not your nutella jar and i am not you're toast!!!
- i ONLY judge off of SPEAKER POINTS because im too TIRED to LISTEN!!! so PLEASE have a PRETTY VOICE@!!!!
- i ONLY give my RFD in SPANISH!!! to encourage learning FOREIGN LANGUAGES!!!1!11
- if you are a GOOD debater I give you TWENTY SPEKAERPPOINTS because IT is on a SCALE of ZERO to THIRTY for a REASON!!!
- what are "CRITICS"?!!??! i should be judging YOU!!! not the OTHER way AROUND!!!
- THEORY is for SCIENCE only!!!
- FRAMEOWKRS!!! are also for HOUSES only!!!
- TRICKsKSKS? is this HALLOWEEN?
- LARP??? we're not at a FURRY convention??? u///u owo????
- lastly, HAVE FUN!!! if i don't see enough ENJOYMENT i will give you both ZERO SPEAKS!!!
(Inspired by Sophia Tian)
TLDR: I will evaluate anything that is clearly explained. I will refrain from intervening and just read what you want.
I am in my fourth year of debating at Lexington High School, both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas, and both local and national circuits. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org for the email chain and if you have any questions.
LD: I enjoy listening to phil the most but go through the syllogism. Kritiks - interesting, explain the warrants well. Tricks - funny, read but explain them. I read some philosophy and theory/T arguments at different points but I'm comfortable evaluating any debates.
PF: I don't expect first rebuttal to do anything except respond to the opposing case. No new arguments in FF and if you read any, I won't evaluate them. Theory in PF is funny so read it if you want. Framework is rare in PF but can be used to weigh the round in your favour.
hi guys! I'm a high school senior and student coach at Brookline High School. I've been doing Lincoln Douglas debate for 4 years as a debater so I've been where you guys are not too long ago! Remember to take a deep breath, I promise ya'll can do this!! Just try and have a fun and educational round.
In regard to preferences, I really appreciate when your arguments are clear and you use signposting and off-time roadmaps! (if you're not sure what those are feel free to ask me before the round :)) And in general, make sure you are being kind and respectful to your opponents.
I will make a strong effort to vote objectively based on the issues presented to me and what gets dropped, extended, attacked, and defended the best. I will actively try and not to let my personal opinions sway the round.
More than anything you're here to learn how to be better debaters so if you have any questions at all feel free to ask me!! GOOD LUCK!
My name is Tasneem (she/her), I am a 3rd year debater with experience in both PF and LD. email: email@example.com
First, have fun! Debate is a game and meant to be lots of enjoyable! I would love it if you read creative and interesting arguments. Don't stress!
1. I need CLEAR arguments. If you can't explain it in your own words, don't read it.
2. Most important to me is comparison: you must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponent's!! Write my RFD in your last speech. I like hearing
- worlds comparison: weigh the aff world to the neg world and what happens in each
- a list of voters highlighting key issues of the round / why you win this round
- good signposting
- good rhetoric and speech skills
- demonstrating deep topic knowledge -> this is really important to me, make sure you know your case in & out
3. I will vote off the flow. Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh.
4. I will not time your prep or speeches - it is up to you and your opponent. Don't abuse this trust.
5. I do not flow cross but I listen. If something important happens in cross, tell me in your next speech and I'll flow it. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep.
6. Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will be an auto loss.
7. Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. But, if I can’t flow the speech, I will probably dock speaker points. IF I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT, I WON'T FLOW IT.
8. Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.
9. Feel free to ask questions after the round, I love answering them.
For LD specifically:
Spend time on the framework debate! I really like philosophical debate and evaluate it first.
MAKE SURE you collapse and simplify the round in the 2nr or 1/2ar.
No new responses in 2n/2ar. I will not flow them.
Lexington '23, Bates '27
I debated for four years (1A/2N) at Lexington High School. I TOC qualled 4 times in LD/policy and earned 9 bids if that matters to you, reading mostly policy arguments, kritiks, and policy-esque T/theory.
The above are in order of how often I've read these as a competitor. As a judge, I'd like to think I'm relatively non-ideological and will attempt to strictly adhere to my flow as a means of resolving debates.
The email chain should be formatted as follows:
Tournament Name Year Round # --- Aff Team [Aff] vs. Neg Team [Neg]
"All are allowed, simply improve".
Most of the things in this paradigm apply to LD the same as policy.
Tech>Truth whenever humanly possible. CX is binding and I'll listen. Don't care if you tag-team. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep. Prep time ends when the doc is compiled, but sending it doesn't count. Feel free to post-round, but nothing overly rude. If a tournament is running late, email me.
I will vote on any argument even if blatantly false besides morally abhorrent ones or anything related to an out-of-round issue except for disclosure. Arguments must be read with a claim, warrant, and impact in the speech they are introduced to meet my threshold for completeness.
I slightly prefer debates with some relation to the topic, but I'll adapt to you.
I don't flow off the doc.
If I'm judging you in a novice division don't worry about the rest of this paradigm-- just debate the way that you are most comfortable and I'll evaluate the round the best I can.
You do not need to give voters or read a value (though you should read a value criterion/framework) or repeat arguments. If you and your opponent agree on values/framework please just say that and move on. Please don't have a values debate over justice/morality (they're virtually the same) and debate over different moral frameworks.
If you want to read advanced positions go ahead, but consider your opponent. Try to present it in a way they can interact and actually engage; go slower and explain everything in CX. Please don't blitz through prep you stole from older teammates/coaches/backfiles and don’t actually understand.
How to get high speaks:
1] Weigh - This can win you 99 percent of novice debates. Say your impacts outweigh on magnitude, probability, timeframe, et cetera, and explain why that mechanism matters the most.
2] Collapse - You don't need to extend every contention; choose 1 or 2 that are the best, explain them thoroughly, and weigh them against your opponent's.
3] Be respectful and use CX strategically.
Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Most politics arguments are factually terrible with absurd scenarios (think riders, court politics) and are more likely to lose to smart analytics.
Zero risk is a thing, but even if not, probability can be mitigated to the point where it's irrelevant. Framing arguments about probability can be useful but are not independent answers to disadvantages. Too many internal links do not reach the threshold of the impact.
I am of the thinking that uniqueness matters slightly more than link when left to my own devices on the matter.
Cheaty counterplans/permutations are up for debate, but would prefer competition mediated through logical opportunity costs to the plan rather than an abuse of negative fiat to create artificial ones (think con-con, Lopez CP). Everything I just mentioned goes out the window if it's a new aff--then it's justified.
I enjoy the impact turn (spark, wipeout, dedev, cap, heg, china war good, the like) very much.
Consider myself agnostic in these debates-- have been on both sides.
The kritik should prove the plan is a bad idea in some way. Case debate is always important and 1NCs should include some level of case defense.
I assume affirmatives get to weigh the case absent reasons not to. Much bigger fan of the middle-ground "you get the aff, we get reps links" interpretation versus those that make the aff entirely irrelevant. Negative teams should start the framework debate in the 1NC and include link walls; I am skeptical of late-breaking framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere.
Planless affs should affirm something and have a tenable role for the negative. Fine for pretty much anything here (fairness, clash/skills, counterinterps, impact turns). I enjoy case presses and kritiks versus these affs and think they are more often viable 2NRs than framework.
Independent voters/adhoms etc need to be clearly articulated and impacted in the speech they are brought up, preferably with a separate framework mechanism of their own.
I don't care how frivolous it is. These debates frequently devolve into blipstorms and are too late-breaking too often. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized. Ideally, paradigm issues are contextualized to the shell.
Precision should be articulated as an internal link to limits and clash in the 1NC. There should be more policy-esque T in LD, not just Nebel or T-Framework- Effects, Extra, etc.
Evidence quality in LD is usually terrible (not contextual to the topic, lacks an intent to define/exclude, etc.), although the water topic was quite bad in its own right.
Familiar with the most common frameworks, but err on the side of over-explanation for super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not just hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as 'extinction outweighs' or 'induction fails'.
Not the most experienced with these and admittedly did not particularly enjoy debating them. I find these somewhat entertaining and like seeing well-explained ones. Please clearly delineate tricks and don't be sketch in cross.
Saying "what's an apriori" is funny one time maximum, but I won't deduct speaks or anything.
I will disclose speaks if someone asks and both teams are okay with it. Speaks are relational to the tournament, but consider myself a speaks fairy; I think they are often interventionist, and will take into account their effect on clearing/seeding.
I will not dock speaks for reading any particular argument or style of debate. I will for being egregiously rude.
Things I like to see and will likely reward with good speaks:
- Technical efficiency
- Going NC AC really well/straight reffing
- Well-executed and/or originally-researched strategies
- Entertaining/funny arguments that are done well
My name is Hannah(she/her) and I’m a 3rd year LD debater at Lexington High School. I compete on the local and national circuit.
-Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will likely be an auto loss.
-Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. I will give reminders but if I can’t flow the speech, I will probably dock speaker points. Try to signpost often so I can keep track of your arguments.
-Spend time on the framework debate! I will usually evaluate it first.
-Make sure to weigh your impacts and explain why one is more important than the other.
-Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.
-Remember to give voters in your final speeches and tell me why you’re winning the round.
I am a parent judge who prefers traditional styles. Please add me to the email chain, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please speak clearly at a conversational pace. Make sure to give clear voters at the final speech and weigh.
I will flow the round. Please signpost when responding to your opponent's contentions. Spend more time on more important arguments so I can catch them.
I am a new parent judge. Please slow down and present yourself clearly.
My expectations for debaters:
--- Speak clearly and confidently in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.
--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.
--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.
--- Signpost in your speeches.
--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.
--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!
Please send me your cases email@example.com, it's easier for me to flow when I can read along.
Hi everyone! My name is Sunithi (she/her) and I go to Acton-Boxborough Regional High school. I am currently a senior who has been doing LD since Freshman Year and am a pretty trad/lay judge
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (include me on the link chain please!)
Here are a few notes (especially in Novice):
- talk slowly please and do not spread unless you share case (in Novice, please ask your opponent if they are okay with you spreading and respect their decision)
- I prefer truth> tech, but love CPs on neg (I will not vote on tech if your opponent does not understand. It ruins the educational aspect of debate)
- Do not be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will not vote on these arguments and will tank your speaks.
- From Isha Agarwal's Paradigm: Please make sure to weigh your arguments and give voters in your final speech. Clearly articulating how the round breaks down for you will make my job as a judge much easier. Also, Line-by- Lines are super helpful and just a really good practice. I cannot vote on anything that does not have a clear impact, so make sure that I know your impacts.
- I also love when debaters give clear impacts of their arguments, but I do not like voting for ridiculous link chains like Civil Disobedience -> Nuke War. Hint: this will show in speaker points
- Please (please!) signpost and go in order of arguments and it helps me have a clean flow
- I do not flow cross-x but I do use it to determine speaker points. So if something important happens, make sure to bring it up in later speeches.
- I will stop flowing after time is up. Please keep your own time as I think that is a very good practice, but I will also keep my own time
- If your opponent requests that you share evidence or cases, I expect that you do it. I will not flow the argument or case otherwise as I will assume that there has to be some sort of negative reason as to why it is not shared.
- As I think that it is important to read paradigms thoroughly, I included this little bit at the end. +0.5 speaker points if you tell me your favorite Taylor Swift song before the round or if you make a legally blonde reference in one of your speeches.
- I am looking forward to the round! See you soon!
I am a parent judge who never competed in Speech or Debate. I fell into the world of Speech & Debate when my oldest decided to compete in LD as a freshman in 2019.
while I can keep up with fast talking I can not flow spreading. I do not flow off a shared case. My job as a judge is to listen to you speak your points and convince me your way is the better way. I vote off who is most convincing and impactful. I also don’t take arguments at face value. Arguments should be based in logic.
Stay respectful of each other and understand everyone is arguing a side they may not agree with.
acton-boxborough '23 --> uchicago '27
contact info: email@example.com
background about me: I've debated for a couple of years now on both local and circuit. dabbled in policy, ks, but ended up doing lots of phil :D
- line-by-line: interact with your opponent's arguments!! debate isn't fun if you don't :(
- signpost: if i have to scramble around my flow to follow your arguments, i will be sad
- please please please weigh, it makes it infinitely easier for me to reach a decision if you tell me why your impacts > your opponents
- collapse: 1 strong contention > 3 bad ones
- crystallize: make sure you make it clear why you win
run whatever, just know that if it's obvious you don't just what ur saying, then ur speaks will drop (and you will prob lose)
also, any form of bigotry in round (racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.) will result in a loss
send docs to: firstname.lastname@example.org
read whatever --just warrant it
Hi there! My pronouns are she/her and I have debated as a Lincoln-Douglas debater for a few years now and I'm looking forward to judging your round!
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com Please subject the email chain using the following format: Tournament Name, Round #, School Name & Team Code vs. School Name & Team Code. An example of this would look like, “Grapevine Classic, R1, Lexington AM vs. Needham LF."
Before I begin, I want to emphasize that debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity, so please take the decision lightly, and use all comments as an educational opportunity.
I'm open to any and all arguments as long as they are respectful and not discriminatory.
Read content warnings if the argument warrants one. If you feel unsafe during the round, please let me know and I will stop the round and contact Tab.
remember every argument has a claim, warrant, and impact; if your argument does not have these parts I can't flow it, so make sure to explain each part of your argument.
please remember to weigh your arguments! All this means is to explain why your argument/contention has more weight than your opponents, why it matters, and why that means you should win the round/argument. In other words, do impact calculus! --> For example: "climate change outweighs nuclear war because it is happening right now, and there is a low chance of nuclear war which means..." Here are some examples of impact calculus: reversibility, timeframe, magnitude...
I did policy debate for one year, so I can take speed -though your opponent might not- so please share your reading doc with an email chain. And never sacrifice clarity for speed. Andslow down for analytics.
I'm familiar with most of these arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained in the round, not only for me, but for your opponent. If you read anything abusive or frivolous I will likely not vote for you, since novice rounds are intended to be educational for both debaters.
I do not flow CX, but if you are confident with your answers and ask good questions I will bump up your speaks.
Exceptional Speaker- weighs all arguments excellently and speeches have clarity: 30 points
Excellent Speaker- speaks with clarity and arguments are cohesive and have line by line: 29 points
Good Speaker- speech is clear arguments are easily followed without having to decipher the arguments: 28 points
Fine Speaker- speech and arguments are somewhat clear: 27 points
Note: I don't intend to give below 27 speaker points; the only exception is if you are rude to you opponent or read any arguments that are blatantly offensive.
Good luck, and have a good round! If you have any questions, feel free to email me :)
I am a parent judge new to LD debate and to judging debate. LD appeals to me because I prefer the idea of debating values to debating policy per se.
If I can't follow what you are saying - whether due to excessive speed of delivery, logical gaps in your argument, technical debate jargon, or something else - I can't vote for it. Also, before you are done speaking, straight up tell me what to vote for & why!
Let's keep the clash addressed to the topic, as opposed to each other, so we can all enjoy a well-considered, civil debate.
My email - firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi! I'm Anya (she/her). I'm a senior at Acton Boxborough and have been doing LD (mostly policy) and some speech for 3 years. Some things to keep in mind:
1. Speak clearly and confidently, I will always give you high speaks for that!
2. Try to weigh your and your opponent's arguments, and it is always helpful to give voters & crystallize at the end of your speech. 1 strong argument > 3 weak ones
3. Please signpost/make it clear which arguments you're responding to. Also, line-by-line respond to your opponent's arguments - don't just respond to the name of the contention, respond to each line.
4. You're welcome to use more progressive arguments, but in novice division, just make sure that you're not running something that will confuse your opponent. And, it's obvious it you're running something that you don't understand/have copied from a wiki, so don't do that.
Have fun and good luck!!
I'm a junior at Lexington High School and have debated for three years. I have experience in LD and PF, but prefer traditional LD.
Read whatever you would like as long as you explain well.
To win the ballot: weigh and crystallize. Tell me which arguments matter and why they matter. Do not leave connections between arguments to be made by me. Explicitly link your defense to the argument it is intended against.
I intend for your speaker points to reflect how well you spoke rhetorically in the round. My criteria are as follows.
Speak passionately and persuasively. Emphasize what is important, engage me.
Present your arguments (offense and defense) in a logical order. Do not leave it up to me to make connections between your arguments for you.
Dominate cross. This is one of the best ways to boost your speaks. I like to see blood on the floor after CX ends. Your opponent's case should be in shambles after such a cross, find contradictions, use counter examples etc. That being said, do not be a prick, interrupt and be cocky. These are not persuasive traits in a speaker and your points will reflect it.
Make intuitive arguments and use historical examples to prove/disprove points.
I look forward to judging your round.
My Pronouns are She / Her
Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.email@example.com
If there is no road map, why would I flow.
Hi, I am Mmesoma. I was a JV Policy Debater on the Regional and National level but I am now a regular judge for regional tournaments. I would consider myself a traditional judge with small exceptions of how you should debate.
Just a Disclaimer, my face moves a lot without my intention. Please do not think I am bored, not paying attention, confused or upset. Just know that I am very much paying attention. If you see me giggle, you said something funny.
Spreading is NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I believe that speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST! You do not need to impress me.
I appreciate respectful and peaceful cross examination. I do not flow cross unless it clarifies an argument I am confused about but flowing cross is unusual for me. Yelling and abusive behavior will lead to speaker points deduction (you would probably see it on my face) but rudeness/attitude would not be a major RFD on my ballot.
Tricks are NOT appreciated at all. Tricks make me uncomfortable as it is an unfair advantage. Instead of tricking your opponent, I feel as though you are tricking me as the judge.
End of Round
I will most likely give a critique once the round is done as well as the vote, if it is okay with both teams. I determine my vote based solely on what is on my flow and full understanding of both arguments. I am not a super super experienced debater, I may miss things, that it is why its so important to articulate and extent your argument as clearly as possible.
If I deem an argument racist, I am not voting for it.
Thank you so much! See y'all in the round.
Hi, my name is Sophie and I'm a senior at Acton-Boxborough! This is my fourth year debating in LD.
I'd like to be on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
For the novice tournament:
- Have fun - this is your first tournament so please remember that the main goal of this tournament is to learn as much as you can!
- Please make your speeches as organized as possible: go in a specific order and make it clear which arguments you are responding to
- When defending your own case, make sure to extend your arguments before answering responses by briefly explaining the argument.
Feel free to ask questions before the round starts!
For Big Lex:
Same rules apply above - but since this is a national circuit tournament, I am ok with you exploring more technical/progressive arguments. That being said, the primary purpose of the novice division is learning, so I'm not a fan of running progressive arguments that your opponent can't interact with at all. (E.g. - ask permission from your opponent before running a counterplan. If they don't know what a counterplan is, don't run a PIC!)
Feel free to ask what I'm ok with before round - the general idea is that I want both you and your opponent to learn from the round.
My name is Ms. Reyes, I work at Bronx Science and I am first-time traditional judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not run any progressive arguments. I appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. Have a good round!
I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well.
I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory.
Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.
Please come to round early. I will be very unhappy if you show up in the last 5 minutes, and even more unhappy if you show up right before the round starts.
+0.3 speaks if you bring me a bag of (lays<3) chips before round
Scarsdale High School ‘23
Email: email@example.com (If there’s an email chain, add me to it)
Hello, I’m Katherine! I have debated for Scarsdale High School for three years and am currently in my senior year of high school.
(Yes you can call me Katherine, you don't have to call me judge)
Note for online debate: Please locally record your speeches so that if there are any tech issues they can be resolved. I will not let people redo their speeches.
If I'm judging JV, I'm fine with all styles (k/larp/tricks/theory/phil), provided you give good judge instruction and have a claim, warrant, and impact, novice points apply, and start slow then get faster when spreading. I don't flow off docs and I do not know the topic.
Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (Some of these are taken from Vivian Guo’s paradigm):
WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them
EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument
Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading
I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round
- If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best
Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech
If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook
As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that
If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1
If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.
Senior LD debater at Lexington High School
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tech over truth, here's a quick pref:
I’m open to evaluating any arguments as long as they have a warrant, including arguments that change the order I should evaluate the debate.
Theory: I’ve debated a lot of theory and enjoy judging theory debates. I don’t default to any paradigm issues/voters so make sure to warrant relevant paradigm issues. I will evaluate frivolous theory and don’t mind judging it. I consider theory as the highest layer but I’m more than open to arguments that say otherwise (k first, form v content etc.).
K: I’m best at evaluating Dysfluency, Psychoanalysis, Pess, Semiocap, and anything similar. I’m open to any K’s or K affs as long as they are clearly explained. If you’re missing parts of your thesis or theory of power I will be less inclined to vote off of it, especially if it's just a mix of buzzwords.
Phill: Needs to be explained and TJF’s are fine. I’m good with Kant, Hegel, Virtue ethics, and Util.
Larp: Larps fine just make sure to weigh between impacts and under framework. Make method cards implications clear
Tricks: I’m not good at evaluating tricks debates but if it's clear I will do my best to evaluate it.
Novices/Trad: Feel free to debate however you like. Remember that framing is the highest level. Make sure you weigh all your arguments under your own framework and don’t forget to attack your opponent's framing. Using CX effectively will increase your speaks and will likely help you win the round. Judges aren’t allowed to evaluate CX so make sure you make CX-dependent arguments are brough up in your speech. Also, time yourselves.
Most importantly have fun!
Things I appreciate:
1. Please no spreading. It will be difficult for me to follow and take notes.
2. Speak clearly.
3. In your final speeches, please summarize your arguments and provide clear voters.
4. An off-time roadmap would be helpful for me to follow your speech.
Helloooo, my name is Everest Yang (He/Him). I am a senior at Lexington High School and this is my third year doing Lincoln Douglas (LD). I primarily compete on the national circuit.
Add me on the email chain: email@example.com
Overview For Novices (Scroll down for Varsity):
SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches). I'm cool with any speed as long as you are clear and your opponent is comfortable with it.
Value Criterion/Framework holds the highest layer. I don't care about "value" debates.
Arguments should be extended through the flow. I will not evaluate new responses in the 2NR/2AR.
Use evidence to back up your claim.
Do not use CX to prep- asking good questions will increase your speaks.
Make sure to do WEIGHING in your later speeches and COLLAPSE to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well. I tend to vote for well-warranted/impacted arguments.
Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc. Don't be a jerk against a Novice, i.e. spreading like crazy, reading Ks/Theory/Tricks.
Overall, I tend to be generous and give good speaker points.
I always disclose the ballot if the tournament allows me to. I will also disclose speaks if both debaters collectively agree.
Overview For Varsity:
Theory - 1
Policy - 1/2
Phil - 2
T - 2/3
Friv Theory - 4
Ks - 4/5
Trixs - 5/Strike
Tech > Truth
This cool - I feel comfortable evaluating most arguments. Just make sure to do clear weighing, especially in dense LARP v LARP rounds. I like DA's and CPs if warranted well.
Defaults: No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD, Fairness, Education
Read any shell you want with real abuse. Go slower and be clear on analytics. Frivolous theory is fine but I have a lower threshold. Disclosure is a good norm! Condo is also probably good...
I'll probably be able to understand the main Philosophers, primarily Kant. That being said, I am fine with whatever you're reading but it's good to have a clear syllogism and explain the fw clearly
I'll do my best to evaluate but I'm not very familiar with kritiks. I'll probably be better for Policy v K since it makes the most sense to me. K v K and K v Phil can get confusing sometimes, especially when there are conceded conflicting theories of power so weighing and direct clash is good. Extinction outweighs can beat back most Ks.
I've heard of Aprioris, NIBs, Truth testing but some of these trix just get way too blippy for me to evaluate comfortably.
Worst case scenario, strike me because I don't really understand these arguments too well breh.
My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there. I'll boost your speaks if you're funny or do something unique I like.
I will disclose speaks if both debaters collectively agree.
Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round.
Good luck and have fun!!!
Debated for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY)
add me to email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
update for NSD/VBI:
1. if you flow either on a cereal box or with crayons, i will give you 30 speaks -- if its outs then ill just really be entertained
2. if u say “erm acshwally☝” before you frontline, i’ll boost ur speaks .3 for every frontline you do it before
3. please for the love of god give a full extension of offense in summary and final
4. i dont listen to cross, if smth happens point it out in speech
5. i want to judge a Roko's round, u shld read it if u want
TLDR: tech judge. If nobody does GOOD weighing ill prefer the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact. At least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh. I generally look to the link level of the debate before the impact level.
- "fast PF speed" is fine - im good with speed around 200wpm. Spread at your own risk bc I realllllllyyyyyy suck at flowing off speech docs and will probably make a worse decision if you spread.
- I won't flow blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on scope" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow. Bad weighing makes me sad.
- Don't just extend card names - tell me what the card is. Chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what they said and won't flow it.
- Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, and terminal defense if you want to go for the arg later
- Defense is sticky only if u tell me it is sticky in final. If you are going to forget and just assume ill flow it through, you are very incorrect.
- If you want to GO for an Impact turn or DA it NEEDS to have an impact and be weighed.
Rant about Probability
If you read new defense in summary or final and label it probability weighing I am docking ur speaks. A lot of probability weighing just isn't real weighing its just late defense and I HATE it - in PF any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any "probability weighing" is just some sort of mitigatory or terminal defense so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal.
Probability weighing I think is legit is: Historical Precedent(only if it is comparative), and Actor Analysis(incentive and capacity, also needs to be comparative).
Good to eval theory, K's as long as they arent spread, but no Trix. I personally think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is fine if not abusive.
Let me know how I can accommodate you in round in any way
I am a parent in my first season of judging. Please provide cogent arguments and communicate your counter arguments clearly to help me better judge your round. Please avoid progressive arguments, if possible. Please speak clearly and with persuasion. Have fun debating!