Tabroom.com

Lexington Winter Invitational

2023 — Lexington, MA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sam Azbel Ardsley High School 4 rounds

Pia Benadikar Murphy Independent 3 rounds

Jack Booth The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 11, 2023 at 7:19 PM EDT

***Public Forum/TOC '23 Read This***

I've judged and coached at a lot of debate tournaments this season, but they've been almost all for high school Lincoln Douglas and college policy formats. I'm coming to the TOC right after the NDT and CEDA nationals actually. Policy debate is where the vast majority of my experience lies as a competitor, coach, and judge. I am not super up to date on current literature/news about biometrics, though it was a large feature of the policy surveillance topic my senior year of high school back in 2015-16 and I remember a few things.

My default way of deciding the debate is by determining which side leads to a better world, using my flow to compare the arguments made in the final two speeches of the debate. I generally think the aff/pro should present an advocacy which is a change from the status quo and the neg/con should defend the status quo or a competitive advocacy. I can be convinced to decide the debate in other ways, usually via framework, theory, or kritik arguments. From when I judged public forum a few years ago, I don't remember there being many of these arguments present in debates, but I'm not up to date on what PF norms are nowadays. TBH, most of what I judge/get preffed for in policy and LD are kritik debates of some kind. If you want to read something like that with me in the back, go ahead, but I'll evaluate those kinds of arguments with the same rigor that I would in policy, which could be detrimental if you don't know what you're doing. Most of my thoughts on kritiks can be found in the policy section and most of my thoughts on theory can be found in the LD section.

In general, however, I would much prefer that you just go for the arguments that you have put the most time/research into and enjoy rather than trying to adapt to what you think would be good for me as a judge.

I think evidence needs to be shared with the opposing team in some capacity, either directly before or after the speech the evidence is presented. I value high-quality evidence, though I care more about how you apply and utilize your evidence, especially in the final two speeches of the debate. If an argument is not extended from one speech to the next, I consider it dropped. I do not like paraphrasing. Disclosure is debatable and based on community norms, but I generally want it to happen - see LD portion. Just below this is my email to add to the chain; speech drop also works.

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley and college @ NYU for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-fairness is more of an internal link or impact filter than an impact itself

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume anything for theory questions

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-apparently, I take a long time with my decisions - often I go all the way to the decision time - this does not say anything about the debate, I am just trying to give the best feedback possible, so don't read into it

-I'm a masters student studying the history of 20th-century French social thought - aside from that debate is basically all I do and I don't have a lot of other hobbies - I listen to audiobooks and read in transit, occasionally play some video games - between coaching both high school and college I am at debate tournaments nearly every weekend of the season - I find myself incredibly lucky that I get to spend most of my time thinking about history, philosophy, theory, policy, and ideas - I love learning interesting things in debates and if you want to chat about something, feel free to reach out

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

How to use - look for your section. First with what format you are in. Now that I'm judging/coaching both LD and policy at the same time, I've split it up between the two activities, with the things that I find most relevant to each. Second with the kind of debate you think you might have in front of me - based on what you read, your opponent reads, the panel, etc. If there's a kind of debate you think you are going to have that you don't find though, try scanning the other activity for the bolded parts to see if it's mentioned. I would prefer that you do not change your style of debate based on what you think my preferences are, but instead read what you've dedicated your time to, feel most passionate about, and feel most confident in.

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

In terms of clarity - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. For rebuttals and analytics that I can't find when I grumpily tab to the speech doc, I will yell clear twice before I stop flowing. If it's in the speech doc, I'll probably flow the important things off the doc unhappily, but it will affect your speaker points.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. There are a few reasons for this. First, I like it when tournaments run on time and the primary determiners of their timeliness are debaters and judges. Tabrooms like this too, and they already have a hard enough job. Second, I would like to have as much time for my decision as possible. In the decision time, I am trying to put together both the best decision possible and also the best feedback possible for you to improve. I can think of a few decisions off the top of my head that I've later thought might've been wrong or where my explanation in RFD didn’t make much sense - let's be real, judges are human and everyone makes mistakes - for all of these decisions that come to mind however, limited time to actually make my decision played a significant factor. I try my best, but please, it really is better for you if you do everything you can to make things run quickly. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. CX or prep time needs to be taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take time for tech issues and am of course fine with bathroom breaks or whatever debaters need - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

I enjoy reading large fantasy and sci-fi novels in my free time. Relatable references to such in a final rebuttal speech can earn up to +.2 speaker points :) - I especially like Brandon Sanderson. Sci-fi/speculative fiction affs are also super cool.

For LD:
How you should pref me: I don't believe in ranking myself as a "1" for certain kinds of debates or a "strike" for others. I am interested in many kinds of debate and try to evaluate any argument presented in front of me to the best of my ability. Also, I really hate the idea of being confined to certain bubbles in debate or being isolated from interesting arguments. All that being said, I of course have more experience in some arguments than others, and the biases that come with that. I come from policy debate. I started my sophomore year of high school, where I competed in mostly lay divisions aside from two weeks of debate camp. I then competed for 4 years on the NDT/CEDA circuit in college, had some moderate success, etc.

Though I say I did lay debate, it was very unlike what you would consider "traditional" debate in LD. I did in fact not spread, have debates mostly in front of parents, and not read so-called "progressive" arguments like kritiks or theory very often. However, all those debates were done with policy resolutions and in a policy format. This involved some "stock issues" debate, which I don't think is useful to elaborate on, but mainly just standard disads, advantage cps, some pics, solvency arguments - what you all would call "larp," just at a slower speed and with more traditional appeal. In college, I was fairly flexible for policy standards, and oscillated between reading stuff with big stick impacts and kritiks with a lot of French theory authors. In college I spread and exclusively did "progressive" debate - I spent a lot more time on debate overall in college than in high school.

The debates that I've had by far the most experience with overall are plans vs. cp/da, plans vs. kritiks, and k-affs vs. t-fw. Secondary to those are probably k v. k debates. The kinds of debates that I've had the least amount of experience with are what you would call "traditional." I come to these debates from the opposite perspective of you all - things like value/value-criterion feel jargony and I often struggle to figure out what it means for how I should decide the debate. If you are having this kind of debate in front of me, please treat me like a true lay person, and assume that unless you are reading util I will be probably unfamiliar with your framework and will not automatically know why you winning your value-criterion means that you should win the debate.

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

For JF23 - Plans are debatable, but if your interpretation is that "open borders" means you get to spec any single border between two states, you should be prepared for a very large limits disad. The resolution does not have an actor and does not say "ought" or "should." Please keep this in mind when having debates about whether affs have to defend implementation or a policy.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. I will vote for it, but I won't feel good about it, and it may reflect in speaks. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

For Policy:

T-Framework: It seems this is the main reason most people read paradigms these days. I have voted both ways in these debates, and have been on both sides (2A reading a k aff & 1N going for fw in the block) of the framework debate in my career.

Neg --I think negative teams here most often miss why things like fairness and education are important. Impact these claims out into some tangible benefit that I can compare against the impact turn. Writing a neg ballot only on procedural fairness is hard for me. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. These debates leave me wondering how to compare fairness to something tangible like psychological violence or political passivity in a traditional impact calc sense. I find fairness much more convincing to me as an impact filter, i.e. a reason to be skeptical of the case page, ensuring better clash, etc. This is considered a hot take by a lot of people, but I really don't understand why. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyways), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me reasonably compare it to the impact turn. Perhaps if you read something like deontology arguments that say fairness is a virtue I must always preserve, I could vote on it alone, but in a utilitarian sense, I just don't know how to weigh it against anything. Fairness as a filter to some neg arguments and a more external impact like skills or topic-specific education is a much more convincing ballot for me. When I do vote on fairness alone, it is usually because the negative team has also forwarded substantial defensive arguments like a convincing TVA, read it on the neg, or c/i links to aff offense that mitigates the risk of the impact turn to nearly zero.

Aff -- I generally prefer aff strategies that just impact turn framework. I have seen and voted for predictable counter-interps, but a lot of the time it feels like an uphill battle. Most of the time, the neg is able to tie a good chunk of their offense to the predictability portion of the debate, which really hurts c/i solvency. That being said, a counter-interp can still mitigate a good amount of neg offense, so it may be still good to have one even if you are impact turning some of the neg's stuff. I just wouldn't recommend it as the focus of your strategy. Like the neg however, aff teams need to do more than make nebulous references to things like psychological violence. What kind of violence, and why is it more important than debating the topic? Explain to me in clear terms what the impact to your impact turn is. Be careful of large defensive arguments. I have dropped a number of teams who mishandle read it on the neg or who read impact turns that link to their own interp.

Everyone needs to compare their impacts to the other side's as well as relative solvency of the interps, and tell me why I should vote for them. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. For affs, pick either the impact turn strat or the perm strat and stick with it. I like impact turns better, but sometimes perms are more strategic. I'm not sure how useful this is, but the way I think about kritiks may also be a bit different than what you're used to. Rather than thinking about it as a non-unique disad with a counterplan, I think about the impacts as negative effects of the status quo, the alternative as a way of resolving the status quo, and the links as reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening, rather than something that directly causes the impacts. This framing helps me a lot when I'm thinking through permutations. This is of course when I'm evaluating something like fiat. Winning that the debate should only be about representations and that the affirmative's reps are bad for scholarship is also a convincing ballot for me.

Literature I am intimately familiar with (have run these arguments frequently and/or have done other research outside of debate into them): Cap, Psychoanalysis (more Lacan than Freud), Baudrillard, Foucault, DnG, Bataille, plant ontology (lol), Bifo, Edelman, Puar.

Literature I am somewhat familiar with (have run these arguments infrequently or done some coaching on them): Derrida, Wilderson, Warren, Set Col.

Anything else assume that I have little or no familiarity with.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing. I don't automatically presume a 1% chance of the link for the whole debate just because you read 1 or 2 bad cards in the 1NC. You have to actually win the link debate for me to grant you a chance of a link.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. I read some wonky process cps and pics in my career but if the aff wins theory then they win theory. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing.

Theory: Being a 2A I think makes more inherently sympathetic to affs on theory questions and the like. I think condo has gone way too far in recent years, especially with multi-plank counterplans that have dozens or hundreds of possible combinations that can all be kicked. If the aff wins new affs are good, it doesn't make sense to me why new affs would then justify unbridled conditionality. That being said, I do my best to evaluate theory arguments as well as I would any other argument in debate. I haven't thought too hard about other theory questions. If you're winning it as a reason to reject the team, feel free to go for it no matter how silly you think it is.

Chris Castillo Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 31, 2023 at 11:29 AM CDT

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

I rarely read evidence after debates.
Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Jamuna Chakravarti Lexington HS 2 rounds

Curtis Chang Scarsdale High School 4 rounds

Antonina Clementi Ridge High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 18, 2023 at 10:54 AM EDT

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

You should know the times and what comes next I should not have to speak to you once the debate starts.

I really need you to be on time, you need to be ready to give your speeches when you stop prep not digging through your bag or gulping water, and I really hate the 3, 2, 1 method. IMO you should be 15 mins early to your round

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

DO NOT POSTROUND! JUDGE STRIKES EXIST FOR A REASON - IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY DECESION THAT IS FINE - STRIKE ME IN THE FUTURE! BUT IF YOU POSTROUND ME I WILL REMEMBER AND WILL NEVER DISCLOSE IF I AM JUDGING YOU AGAIN!

I am fine with and encourage questions. I consider post rounding any form of tone along with your question, eyeroll or general disrespectfulness.

I air Tech/Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose - I do not want to vote on disclosure theory (esp round report) - so idk only run disclosure theory that makes sense.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think new affs are good - I need like SUPER proven abuse to vote on new affs bad.

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan.

Special Note on Cap K's

It is an uphill battle with me on the Cap K tbh. You can read it watch what you say. I have voted on lots of cap Ks before so its not impossible to get my ballot. I can not stand when you claim a country has successfully converted to communism when it has not in reality. I do think some countries have but I have had competitors claim Spain is a communist nation. Also when referring to failures of communism do not just say "South America" or "The Caribbean" . Further, do not conflate people who had to flee say Cuba to "All just slave owners" that is just not historically inaccurate and discrediting of the reality. TLDR: You can read it but you best be read up on communism and don't you dare try to say Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD.

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

I am a poli sci major and currently work on a campaign. I know politics so do not say something dumb that makes no sense.

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW.

Tricks

Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
I am super open to trix bads theory
Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
some phil is cool
I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ NATO topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

Same as LD
Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/concerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Amadea Datel Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed August 30, 2023 at 7:58 AM EDT

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year, and I'm now the Director of LD at VBI and an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDers.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Cindy Ding Lexington HS 4 rounds

Holly Ding Lexington HS 2 rounds

Tom Evnen Lake Highland Preparatory School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 11, 2023 at 12:35 PM EDT

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

Jayanne Forrest Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 14, 2023 at 5:39 AM EDT

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a pre-med Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies. I currently coach for Lake Highland Preparatory school.

My email is mayjay144@gmail.com. Start an email chain, Speechdrop, or use file share on NSDA Campus. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, but feel free to send me a google doc link with view-only access.

quick prefs:

Policy arguments & T - 1

Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2, not my fave if they could have been T with same lit base as the framing]

Theory - 3

Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out horrific examples of gratuitous violence. Black violence is not a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS.Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this.

- I'm not a big fan of complex theory/skep/tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about, just take the round seriously.

- I think there are productive ways to engage in critical race theory. I don’t think that non-black debaters should be reading radical Black advocacies (e.g. afropessimism, Black nihilism etc.). Read your social justice positions, but please leave our radical Black authors/groups out of it. If you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will not vote on it. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

PF:

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.

Brett Fortier Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 28, 2023 at 10:49 AM EDT

PLEASE COME ON TIME AND START THE ROUND ON TIME - we are all busy and don't want to wait 15 minutes for an email chain, speaks will directly reflect this preference, you will also get better speaks if you can end early or take less prep but please don't do so at the expense of speech quality

brett.t.fortier@gmail.com

Mandatory things about debate so you know I'm somewhat qualified to judge

Debated for Lexington HS from 2018- 2022

Competed on nat circuit from 2019-2022, got 15 career bids, qualled to TOC junior + senior year, won a couple tournaments, deep elims of a handful of others (not that any of this actually affects how good judges are but I get why it's useful to know).

TLDR; run whatever you want, I'll evaluate it as best as I can, I wont refuse to evaluate anything and I will try my best to evaluate everything, below is mostly a list of familiarity with arguments and rants about debate

Theory- 1

Trix - 2 (if you read actual warrants you are fine but I'm not gonna make the argument for you)

Phil - 2/3 (good if you want to actually debate, if you use it as an excuse to do trix debate but with less warranting I will be unhappy) please acc explain your phil some of it is dense

Policy- 2

K- 2/3 (Becoming more comfortable but still have less experience)

I have run most arguments from Deleuze K, to skep NC's, friv theory, Policy, and also debated at several local tournaments. That being said I mostly read theory as my A strat, tricks occasionally when I could, and policy and phil in other rounds

Please add me to the email chain brett.t.fortier@gmail.com

I will flow any speed, but I reserve the right to say clear or slow 3x, after that point if I don't catch something I consider it to be on you. I am generally not great at flowing, I am fine for most things, but if you are spreading at 500wpm and extempt 'evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR' or some other blippy 1 liner that you expect to win off of, if I didn't flow it then I will not vote off of it.

Statements do not have to be true, but they do have to have a warrant, the warrant does not have to be true, but it does have to exist. I will vote off blatantly false statements if there is an extended warrant and impact. Truth and tech trade off which each other, the more true you are the less tech you need to be and vice versa.

Attacks on other people are not arguments and thus don't belong in the space

Misc

I default no judge kick CP's

I am not voting on evidence ethics. Stop being scared of debating. Run it as a shell or get me to reject the arg, if you stake the round you will lose.

I will not evaluate 'give me 30 speaks', I will give you what you deserve. I will probably just drop your speaks for this

Call-out affs are not real arguments. I will not vote on call out affs, even if you can prove that the debater is bad in some way, it's not my job to evaluate if a debater is a bad person and I won't do it

I will time prep if I remember which I will try to, please don't steal prep, its not fair or allowed

if you post round, do it respectfully, ask questions, I mess up sometimes, if you get your coach to come and yell at me, I will just get up and leave

I won't read evidence unless you ask me to do so, and if you ask me to do so, please say what I am looking for i.e. 'their impact card has no evidence that global warming is reverse causal' is good but 'their evidence is bad' will not cause me to go back

I will sometimes close my eyes while I'm flowing, I'm not asleep, just helps me concentrate

Defaults

Presumption goes to the side of least change (very easy to change), permissibillity negates (harder to change just bc most arguments as to why it affirms don't actually justify it)

Theory is CI, DTD, no RVI

TT paradigm

Theory>K>Substance

All of these can be changed very very easily but just making some type of argument about it, please dont make me use these defaults

Policy-

Go for it, have well researched positions that you can understand well, just please don't be boring. If it's the same generic Aff that 100 other people have on this topic, and there is nothing about yours that makes it unique, I will be sad. I will still pick you up even if it's not interesting but I will probably give you worse speaks as a result of my not being invested in the debate.

I don't understand why people don't make more analytical turns on case, just because it's a Policy debate doesn't mean that you need a card that takes 30 seconds to read when you can say the same thing without a card in 10.

CP's: go for it, I like all CP's

I think analytical CP's that intuitively solve for all of the Aff's offense are underused, solvency advocates are probably not needed to make a CP legitimate

I like cheaty memey CP's and they are underused as well e.g. space elevators

If you insert evidence, you should read it, if you are pulling specific lines I think its your burden to read it, if you want me to read their evidence, tell me what specific things to look for, I am not going to read every single line of the article before making my decision. I.e. 'read their evidence - it doesn't isolate Russian aggression as the IL to war, it says bear attacks cause war' is good whereas 'read their evidence it's bad' is not something I am going to do.

Condo is prolly good unless you use it in a way that is explicitly to take advantage of condo, solvency advocates probably aren't needed, Pics are pretty neutral, process + agent CPs r probably bad. (Change my mind through debate, these are very light defaults)

K's

Go for it, I am familiar with the rough ideas of most K literature, but I will not use prior knowledge to evaluate your K

The further out of debate I get the more I enjoy these BUT you should know your lit, good K debate is teaching me about models of the world and explaining why and how violence occurs, if I leave the round feeling as though I have learned something your speaks will be accordingly boosted

I personally never read that many K's, but I have hit most of them, and now have experience teaching or being taught a majority, so feel pretty good evaluating them

HOWEVER, if you read some new K that is 99% incoherent, and your explanation of the K in the last speech is not sufficient for me to understand the K then I will not vote on it.

Please don't give a 4 minute 2NR overview to the K that does a bunch of implicit work everywhere, I would much prefer a brief overview then LBL, I am unlikely to give implicit clash on either side, but this will hurt you more if your work is OV heavy and relatively light on the LBL

I don't like death good, I will vote on it but I just don't find myself very convinced by it and I think ethically debaters probably shouldn't read it.

I would prefer if you have framing mechanism and that you weigh it against theory or the aff framing mechanism. However if your ROB is something that is basically just a trick, you know what this means, I don't understand how its good for debate. Your ROB should not be 'I auto win' because this would seem to rely on you winning debate bad or ontology to justify the ROB at which point you have already won.

If you are going to go for the alt as a floating PIK, indicate it in the 1NC please

Theory

I love it, I think it's very strategic, rhese are the most entertaining debates to judge a lot of the time

Friv theory is good, however the more frivolous the shell is the more frivolous of a response I will accept on the shell

Read unique shells that I haven't seen before or old shells with new standards and you will make me happy and probably get better speaks, it can be a frivolous shell, friv shells that are new are often hard to respond to which is good for you

I will vote off a RVI on pretty much any theory shell, even if it's just an I meet on theory as long as you justify it

Disclosure is probably good, disclosure theory is also probably good

If you read reasonability please give some sort of way for me to know what you think is reasonable 'good is good enough' is not sufficient to justify reasonability

That being said, theory debates with 5 shells and 2 RVI's floating around get messy quickly, weigh between aff theory and neg theory, fairness and education, theory and RVI's, etc.

Tricks

Go for it but please read this whole section, don't just assume I want to sit through this. People are not reading this and getting bad speaks lol, debate tricks well or don't do it, don't be messy

I ran these positions and generally find them either interesting and entertaining or completely a waste of everyones time. At their best it causes tons of critical thinking, line by line arguments, and interesting weighing interactions. At its worst its two people grasping at complex positions reduced to 1 line blips which are both fully conceded and I have to intervene or flip a coin

Yes Tricks are stupid and usually bad arguments but that means it should be fairly easy to answer them and I don't get why people don't just answer them. IMO if you can't do lbl and so drop a trick that would be on you.

Don't say 'whats an a priori' in cx, I will drop your speaks, you know what it is

If you read tricks but you don't understand them then it's probably not strategic to just bombard them with tricks

If you cannot explain the paradoxes that you read, I will not rely on prior knowledge to evaluate them

If you read evaluate x after x speech I will wait until after the 2AR to see if I ought to evaluate after x speech and if you have won the argument at that point I will backtrack and evaluate the round as needed.

Like with all things- the blippier the trick is, the less you need to respond to it in order to disprove it

Tricks need warrants, otherwise you can just say 'no warrant' and move on

This 'no 2N I meets thing' lacks the warrant for an argument, you still need a violation for the theory shell and if you don't have it you will lose idrc if the 2N isn't allowed to make I meets. Also it seems like you could do this and read a very questionable shell that they probably don't violate which would possibly be a strategic way to read this argument.

If you read something without a warrant I will not vote on it, full stop.

The worst arguments I have ever seen in debate are probably trix, if you read these types of argument VERY REAL CHANCE YOUR SPEAKS ARE TANKED. I consider this fair warning to be harsh.

T vs. K affs

I lean for T in these debates due to my experiences as a debater and the side I was usually on, but I have nothing against K affs, have and would continue to vote for them

I think that when done well K affs can be strategic and good for the space, but that if you read a K aff and are unprepared for T that you will probably lose

If your K aff or Frwk block is just OV generic stuff from 2012, I will be very unhappy

Your T 2NR should respond to case, if you don't it's very likely that you will lose the case debate and then lose the framework debate

Speaks

I start at a 28.5 and move from there, below 26 is reserved for fully offensive things. The speaks you receive are relative to the pool you are in, e.g. a 29.5 at a local is different than a 29.5 at TOC.

Speaks are a reflection of not only how good you are but how happy you make me, if I am happy then you will be happy with your speaks, if I am sad than you will not be happy. Resolving good debates that are close is very very different than judging bad debates that are messy and hopefully you can draw that distinction.

If you sit down early or take less prep I'll give you higher speaks :)

Novice/Lay debate

If you read something that excludes a novice or lay debater from engaging, and it is clear that you knew they could not engage and yet you still continue with this strategy, you will get a L 20. For example, if your opponent reads a case at a conversational speed and then you spread a skep and Baudrillard NC and it is clear they don't know what is happening during CX and their 1AR, then you will lose. I don't care if you are ahead on the flow, you should not have to read arguments they can't engage with in order to win. You should try to speak at a max roughly 50% faster than them. I will not drop you unless it is a case of blatant abuse, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you read a tech AC without realizing they can't engage, you should 1) help them understand in cx and 2) dont go for the tricky parts of the T

Debate what you feel comfortable with if you are a lay debater or novice, I think these debates are good and definitely an important part of learning to debate

Don't have justice vs. morality debates, they are the same thing and picking one over the other makes ultimately no difference

Patrick Fox Ascent Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 21, 2023 at 9:17 AM CDT

tl;dr - "negative terrorist, but very amenable to aff counterterror". primarily a K coach, but secretly cuts and likes policy stuff just as much. offense/defense, technical, but not to the point of stupidity, and doesn't flow off the doc. topic knowledge will be medium, reasonably adept at judging everything, would prefer an in-depth K v K or counterplan/disad/case debate, but I accept the nightmare of clash debates as penance for the sin of debate centrism. likes lots of evidence, likes lots of explanation, dislikes stupidity hiding behind abstractions and posturing. yes, you can read a planless aff, and yes, you can read framework. 2N, very expressive, generally grumpy about everything, but don't take it personally - i am not as much a hardass as i seem. if you can't be funny without being a dick, you aren't funny. please be funny. less posturing, more arguing. Please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir", pat or p.fox is fine.

the top-level stuff

Policy debate: University of Houston, Dulles High School, Sidwell Friends School (current), Westside High School (former). LD debate: all over the place. Lab leader: UTNIF (CX), TDI (LD).

He/him/his

pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com - I strongly prefer email chains to anything else (SpeechDrop, etc). Please have the doc sent at or before start time.

Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY")

I have hearing damage in my left ear, so try and position yourself to my right. I also sometimes get sensory overload, so I close my eyes during speeches/put my head down during prep/stare off into the distance - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, I can literally flow with my eyes closed and without looking at my screen.

non-negotiables

Debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion. I adjudicate the competitive aspect to enable progression of students in research and persuasion.

The safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. Crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had.

Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within speech and prep times, and will submit a decision with one winner and loser (or a double-loss).

For high school students, I do not want to see or perceive anything that isn't PG-13.

If you try and tell me anything is "binding" on my "jurisdiction" as a judge, you are incorrect. Furthermore, I will resent you telling me how to do my job.

Condo is good, RVIs are bad. I put this in the non-negotiables section because they are far and away the convictions I will have the hardest time to be dissuaded of.

judging overview

I try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small debates over a stable controversy. I personally enjoy T throwdowns, impact turns and a CP/DA, framework vs K aff, policy vs K and rev v rev rounds basically equally, and I have coached all of them at high levels. Above everything else, I care that whatever you do, you defend it (and if it's indefensible, don't do it).

Do not make assumptions about your strategy's viability based on my record as a debater or coach. For what it's worth, I tend to spend more of my time thinking about K than policy strategies, but my voting record in clash debates has always been pretty even (probably policy leaning, actually), and the gap on pref sheets between where K and policy teams put me seems to have narrowed over the last two years. I used to say I had more practice judging K v policy and K v K rounds than policy/policy rounds - I no longer think this is true. If I were to personally curate the rounds I had to judge (what a dream), it'd be about an even mix of policy affs vs the K, policy affs vs a disad and counterplan, and K affs vs Ks.

I'm comically expressive. I shake my head and scowl at arguments I dislike, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I make eye contact and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I will chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech, which I am fine with, and actively encourage - I think if you have a read on me, it makes judge instruction easier, which makes everything better.

I was coached by JD Sanford and Aimun Khan in high school, and Ricky Garner, James Allan, Rob Glass and Michael Wimsatt in college. My favorite judges were Scott Harris, DML, DKP and Devane Murphy. Students, colleagues, or close friends of mine I noticeably overlap in my conception of debate with include Luna Schultz, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Eric Schwerdtfeger, Sean Wallace, E Cook, and Avery Wilson.

Most judge paradigms are some variant of “Tech over truth, I swear I’m smart and cool, I definitely have no biases, I was very good at debate”. I found these useless as a debater for understanding how someone makes decisions and what they view as “good” debating. So, this paradigm is kind of long. That being said, it could be longer - if you want thoughts about specific args and not just my general thoughts on how judging works, click here for the purpose of more informed prefs.

Stolen from Jake Lee: "You have the doc in front and all you have to do is listen. If I can flow without looking at the doc, you can too!" I am increasingly appalled by the standard of flowing among high school debaters, and aside from asking for a marked doc, questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, I will start one for you. If you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. The obvious exception to this is if you have some sort of hearing problem or a similar issue with audio processing that requires accommodation - feel free to tell me if that's the case.

here's what I think is most important to know about me as a judge:

- I judge a lot - on average, ~100 debates a season, more policy than LD rounds these days. This is because of three things:

I think judging is a skill, and it is valuable for the community to have a surplus. You can't give a good 2NR if you haven't given a speech in three months, and I can't give a good RFD if I haven't judged all season. Many judges don't think about judging as a skill you can refine, so they never get good at judging. I try to think about this a lot.
I think judging is interesting, because I like debate. Knowing what the best teams are going for both helps my own debaters and keeps me awake - the way the activity iterates and (mostly) improves over time, both in content and form, is the fun part.
Rent isn't free, and judging pays bills. Coaching is the only consistent job I have had since graduating high school, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging, and I most enjoy debates at the bleeding edge - push boundaries or show me something new, and you'll be rewarded. Good renditions of classics also rock, though. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

- Some judges admit they are not the best flows. I consider myself very good. You will likely not go too fast for me, but know that I do not open docs during speeches. I think debate is communicative, so my primary reference for the decision I make is what you tell me to do, not what your doc said or how good your cards are. If you want me to pay attention to those things, tell me to do it. This means regardless of content or style, I value debating who is organized and easy to follow - number arguments, give me "pen" time, slow down for emphasis, signpost. My ideal speech structure is minimal (zero, tbh) overview, with arguments answered in the order they were presented, and explaining the parts of your argument in the context of being responses to your opponents (i.e: putting the link debate on the permutation, extending the alt as an answer to the deficit). I am probably actually open to adopting alternative models of evaluating debate beyond technical refutation, but I don't wanna reject flowing outright without having a good idea what I should do instead.

- "Tech vs truth" is a false dichotomy. Better warranted arguments require less technical prowess to win, but technical execution improves your chances of beating a better arg. In a perfect truth stalemate, tech tiebreaks, and vice versa. Either can overcome the other, provided proper judge instruction and strategy. A better way to frame my philosophy here is that the burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder - if you have not warranted an argument to justify its truth, I do not care if it is technically mishandled, as there was never a full argument to handle. Example: I have given RFDs that say “the 2AR has X argument the 2NR did not answer, but the actual warrant for why the argument was true did not exist until the 2AR, so I consider the argument in its winning form ‘new’ and am very comfortable just not flowing it as such”. This is why I am sometimes persuaded to vote for the team that was being "out-teched" because I find the opposing team to be spamming ink with no strategic vision or judge instruction instead of actually debating the other team’s argument (this happens a lot in Framework debates I judge, and I find both sides equally often guilty). I guess I'm "tech over truth" in that techy arguments beat non-techy arguments, but techy non-arguments don't beat anything. Be wary of the distinction.

- I think that debate is best when debaters are comparative, and speak in relative risk rather than absolutes. Very few cards support clean cut yes/no conclusions, and recognizing that makes you much more persuasive. Example: "No China war now, but plan guarantees it - outweighs because zero impact to the prolif scenario" sets a very high threshold for me to vote neg. By contrast, "likelihood of US-China escalation is low now even with tensions, but the plan is a massive shift which incentivizes Xi to retaliate - it's significantly higher risk than the case because external factors check escalation from prolif, but their ev only assumes worst-case scenarios" is certainly a longer argument, but leaves more leeway for me to conclude in your favor even if I have some doubts. Debaters are never winning anything as decisively as they think they are, and so couching 2N/AR offense in this frame (i.e: "even if" statements) helps a lot.

- The best final rebuttals do the absolute bare minimum - if there are not fewer arguments in the 2N/AR than the 2A/NC on a particular page, we’ve lost the plot. Choice is the foundation of strategy, and final speeches that choose the exact smallest number of arguments they need to win maximize the relative time they can spend explaining and impacting each argument. Example: Final speeches say things like “we don’t need to win [xyz] to win, but I’ll do it anyways” - why? You’ve just actively told me this has nothing to do with you win-condition, so flowing this is now a waste of time. Either spend the time on things that matter or make this argument matter too. Example 2: The best 2ARs I judge usually begin with “there are only 3 arguments that matter for this debate: X, because… Y, because… and Z, because… - we’re going to win all three”. This reflects good strategic vision, and I’m inclined to reward that.

- Many judges give atrocious RFDs. I try not to. I'm definitely long-winded, but being thorough and going through every moving part of the debate is better than a 2 sentence non-decision that hand-waves details. I ask myself what would be most confusing about losing if I was the 2A/2N, and try to answer that question in advance. “Writing my ballot” should be taken literally - I coach my debaters to start the 2N/AR off with "your RFD is..." I have autism, I promise you cannot be "too direct" with me. Judge instruction is an essential skill that is deeply lacking from many debates. Weighing, impact calculus, argument resolution.

- I find strategies that attempt to avoid clash/engagement more annoying than amusing, and my threshold for answering nonsense is medium-low. You know who you are and you know what this means. Debate is valuable because it encourages content mastery, and I am most impressed by debaters who can show me they've done their homework. That means that I find arguments that attempt to circumvent this pretty clearly less valuable from a pedagogical standpoint, and will be loathe to reward them - the stupider or more in bad faith your argument is, the harder I will look for an excuse to not vote for it, and the lower my threshold for answering it will be.

Closing thoughts

COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. "Post-pandemic" is an empty signifier. If anyone else in the room is wearing a mask, I will also be wearing a mask. If the tournament has a mask mandate, I will follow it. If anyone asks me to put on a mask, I will. I will hold all of you to the same standards. If you do not have a mask, I will have extra. If you refuse to abide by these very simple and reasonable standards, I will happily give you an L25. These are not negotiable standards of conduct.

Theoretical/procedural questions ("is there a violation", "does perm do the counterplan sever", etc) are resolved as yes/no, with the burden of proof on the "yes" side (i.e: neg has to prove the counterplan could/should definitely never be the aff - there is no "risk of competition/violation"). Everything else is offense/defense.

I like music and will listen to it during prep time. I enjoy most music - I almost went to school for jazz composition, and regularly listen to hip hop, punk, blues, and metal, as well as lots in between. Any debater can suggest a song for me to listen to during prep, and if I like it, I will bump everyone's speaks by 0.1 - this is a stackable bonus, and there's no penalty if I decide I dislike it.

Speaks start at 28.5 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3. I try and keep it relative to the pool - a 30 at TFA State is easier to get than a 30 at GBX (although I don't give out many 30s). Below 28 and I think you are legitimately in the wrong division i.e: go mess around in JV for a bit, below 27.5 and you have done something profoundly bad. I tend to reward well-organized speeches, smart and gutsy strategic choices, and debating with character. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone. Respect pronouns, respect people's personhood, etc.

Taking it easy is fine and good, but wasting everyone's time is not. You should respect that your opponents and judges take both themselves and you seriously, and that there is value we get from being here. At the same time, games should be fun to play. Its the weekend. Show me you *want* to be here.

I will make minimal eye contact during any given debate. Don't worry about it.

I decide most debates very fast, even in close rounds. Don't take it personally.

When debating a novice/substantially less experienced debater, taking advantage of their inexperience (speeding through a ton of off knowing they can't keep up, going for weird counterplans or Ks knowing they won't get it, being obtuse in CX, etc) will be aggressively penalized with low speaks. Like, your cap is a 28. By contrast, giving them the dignity of a full debate without being a dick (slowing down, being nice in CX, making the debate smaller, etc) will be generously rewarded. Like, your floor for speaks is a 29. We aren't nice enough to novices and people from smaller, less circuit-y programs, but they are much more important to the long-term health of the activity than any of us.

Yao-Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck." You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

Good luck, and see you in round!

- pat

Christian Han Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 10, 2023 at 2:04 PM EDT

I am a second year at UVA and debated LD for Lexington High School for 4 years and qualified to the TOC. As a debater, I mostly ran phil and policy-style arguments, notably Kant and Virtue Ethics. Coaching actively on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.

Chain: speechdrop.net or han.christian.09@gmail.com

tldr -

I will never vote on "vote for me because I am x identity" arguments.
Disclosure is good.
Don't be offensive and arguments must have warrants to meet a threshold for evaluation. Saying "no neg analytics, cuz of the 7-4,6-3 time skew isn't sufficient" you need to justify why no neg analytics compensates for the time skew. Won't vote on conceded claims.
Please time yourselves.
Death/suffering good (spark and wipeout type stuff is fine)

quick prefs: 1 - phil, 1-2 policy and k, 2-3 theory, and 4-6 tricks.

specifics -

Policy- I like policy arguments and feel comfortable evaluating them. Strong impact calculus wins debates and is often the first part of the flow I took to when making a decision. Default - judge kick unless aff makes args otherwise.

Phil - This is the format of debate I did the most thinking about in my career. I mainly read Kant and Virtue Ethics but also occasionally read more niche frameworks such as Testimony and Double Effect. Share similar views to phil debate and frameworks as Andrew Garber. I love good phil debates so NC/AC debate will be rewarded with higher speaks!

Kritiks - K's should prove that the aff is a bad idea - your job to win framing debate because it decides the debate. Familiar with most K's but that doesn't mean the 2NR gets away with a lackluster explanation of K's thesis and impact and how it interacts with the affirmative & Kaffs - don't lose to T and presumption so explain what the aff does. I think the best kaffs have some tether to the topic while shutting out potential negative disad and counterplan links.

Theory - Check Matthew Berhe for his thoughts on theory debate and defaults as mine are relatively the same. Don't spam shells - read with a purpose.

Thresholds (more of a preference than a yes/no on whether I'll evaluate them)

---Fine - counterplan theory, T, resolutional spec, AFC, spec status, etc.

---Not fine - font size/type/color, dinosaurs, avatars, etc.

Chetan Hertzig Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 21, 2023 at 6:22 AM EDT

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

Please just call me Hertzig.

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

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

BIG PICTURE:

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

SHORTCUT:

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

Trad debate - 1

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

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

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

GENERAL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chandra Kandanuru Germantown Academy 2 rounds

Eric Kim Bergen County Academies 6 rounds

Arun Kodumuru Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 1, 2023 at 9:31 AM EDT

Send Speech Docs!!

Email: kodumuru@umich.edu

Hello I'm Arun Kodumuru, I'm a Freshman at the University of Michigan and I debated for 4 years in LD at Lexington Highschool

General Things --

1) If you are unclear and as a result I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear 4 times before I hop on Tetris.

2) tech > truth

3) Don't be bigoted -- I forget which paradigm I got this from but: "don't use words, phrases or slurs outside of your social location," period. You can run arguments that may be on the edgy side but just make sure your opponent is comfortable.

4) I'm good with any speed just maybe go 90% of your normal speed if it's early in the morning.

5) Use good ev ethics -- I agree with Tej Gedela's stances on this

6) More time spent on weighing + explanation is always in your best interest

7) If you're circuit going against a trad debater to get high speaks you can still read your usual circuit strat, but just don't spread.

8) Debate is tough and if you're feeling down watch this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGOQfLFzJj8

Quick Pref Sheet --

Theory/T - 1

K (Identity) - 2

Phil - 2/3

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3

K (High Theory) - 4/5

Defaults: (These can be altered and changed very easily based on arguments made in the round)

Truth-Testing > Comparative Worlds

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Drop the debater > Drop the argument

No RVIs > RVIs

Presumption Affirms > Presumption Negates

Permissibility Negates > Permissibility Affirms

Layers from highest to lowest: Theory, T, ROB, ethical fwrk

Novice LD --

I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the debate rather than ethos. However, ethos will determine speaker points. I would prefer that you do not spread if your opponent does not spread or read arguments that your opponent may not understand and cannot engage in (i.e theory or tricks). DO NOT read tricks in a novice debate, I will vote on them but you will get 25 speaks.

DO WEIGHING! Most novice debates come down to who weighs there impacts better so please do weighing. Debates without weighing make me sad and are often irresolvable. Clash with each others arguments as much as possible.

COLLAPSE! Don't go for every argument you read in the debate. If you read 3 contentions choose 1 to extend in the 1AR and 2AR and do lots of weighing for why that 1 contention comes first in the debate. You also don't need to extend every card in the aff - extend a few and compare your evidence to theirs.

How to get high speaks: Be respectful, Collapse, Weigh, Clash with your opponents arguments, Use CX strategically.

Varsity LD --

Tricks -- Sure, but there are some caveats -- The warrant for an argument starts at 0 and then goes up, with that being said just make sure there's an actual justification for your tricky arguments. Be truthful during cross and I would appreciate it if you formatted your doc so that I could see each argument. Also the roadmap is super important with these debaters so please walk me through the order for each flow and whether I should flow a certain argument on a separate page .

-- If you have analytics pre written in a constructive speech send it

T/Theory -- Yeah sure go for it. I every read shell from condo to glizzy theory throughout my career. I'll always be technical, but my threshold for reasonability also decreases with the frivolity of the shell. Structure your shell and make sure I know what I'm voting on. Make sure to do lots of framing and weighing for different impacts in the round so that I can judge the round off the flow.

-- Don't read disclosure against traditional debaters, I'll still vote on it, but your speaks won't be lookin too hot.

K -- K's are dope and I'm always open to them. In debate I primarily ran Mollow and Queerpess as my main K strategies, but I've taken classes on Nietzsche and looked into Berardi. I will say I am a lot more comfortable with the identity side of K debate but I'll evaluate your wacky K's as well. Don't spend five minutes on the overview about your theory, I would much more appreciate if you do the explanation along the line by line. Also framing is a huge part of these debates, just make sure I know what your model's orientation looks like.

-- If you're reading a reps K please proactively explain why I should drop the other debater/whatever your impact is -- "that's a voting issue" isn't a warrant.

K affs -- Read them, go for it, I don't care if you don't implement but explain your model of debate and why it deserves the ballot. I'm also a big fan of performances and I think that its important that debate can be inclusive to allow this type of discourse in the space. That being said I will not evaluate call out arguments or arguments based on out of round violations other than disclosure. Lastly, explanation for your method is super important -- I need to be able to repeat back to you what it is that the aff does in order for you to get the ballot.

Policy/LARP -- Yeah policy is dope a well-constructed CP or DA is always strategic. I guess like if you're very far west coast i.e. going into heavy IR theory I am not the best judge for you, but with my lesser east coast policy style knowledge I should be a good judge. I won't read evidence unless instructed to read it by a debater or if it's actually necessary to adjudicate a messy round.

-- I live for impact turn debates! -- If you actually understand the turns that you're reading and give me a good explanation of them your speaks will be rewarded handsomely.

Phil -- Philosophy is a very interesting style and I advocate for it because of how specific it is to LD. That being said I understand most of my phil experience in debate was between Util, Kant and Hobbes with a little bit in Virtue Ethics and Hegel. Some of the more abstract philosophies that are read these days are a little harder for me to digest, but with a good explanation of the meta ethic and standard in a round I should be able to understand your argument. I also encourage debaters to cut substantive evidence for the syllogisms of their frameworks -- it just makes the argument a lot stronger.

-- Please enunciate more on your permissibility triggers and provide sufficient explanation for them. I'm not willing to pull the trigger for you for a 1 second trigger you made in the NC.

Guhan Krishnan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 4 rounds

Archit Kumar Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 10, 2023 at 8:53 AM EDT

Varsity:

Hi I'm Archit - karchit0509@gmail.com - I debated for four years at Lexington High School and qualified + broke at the TOC 2x.

**I AM BAD AT FLOWING - GO 60-70 PERCENT MAX SPEED OR I WILL MISS ARGUMENTS

TLDR - Don't be offensive and arguments need warrants. I have a high threshold for warrants and I am not afraid to give an RFD on x blip didn't have a sufficient warrant.

1- T/Good Theory/Substantive Phil/Policy args

2 - Dense phil.

3 - Tricky phil, Topic Specific Ks

4- Ks or K affs, Heavy tricks, Bad Theory

Stuff I like

1] Topicality! T Framework, Topic specific stuff, Nebel all great. Bad and doc botted Nebel debates are terrible but good Nebel debates make me very happy. High speaks for a pics 2AR versus nebel. Semantics can be confusing so make sure to explain it.

2] Good Theory arguments. (Counterplan theory, Open Source, True combo shells).

3] Policy debate. Love innovative affs + new pics. Read these and go for these. 2NR gets new cards to some extent (can't be egregious and to the point where you are functionally reading new scenarios).

4] Substantive phil. My favorite argument in debate was Kant but I almost always read util against phil affs. I err Util against dense, confusing phil but am very, very even on Kant vs Util or Hobbes.

Stuff I don't like or wouldn't be good at judging -

1] Tricks - I won't gut check but these make me sad and speaks will reflect that. Some innovative philosophical tricks are ok but paradoxes, nibs, skep not great. Won't vote on eval debate after _______. If I don't flow it, I'm not voting on it. (I'm not great at flowing so slow down if you still decide to read 1000 nibs. (Answering tricks with tricks is totally fine. You can go for the dropped resolved a priori if ur opponent initiated a trick debate.

2] Bad theory (must read condo, nit-picky disclosure violations, shoes theory) is terrible and while I won't gut check it I will be inclined to vote on reasonability and hurt your speaks. PLEASE USE REASONABILITY AGAINST BAD THEORY.

3] Kritiks - I don't dislike Kritiks but I literally never read one so it would be hard for me to evaluate these rounds lol. Extinction outweighs seems true to me and I err aff on getting to weigh the case.

4] K affs - Again don't dislike but I have 0 experience and err towards T framework. I'll do my best to be tech though.

Defaults: (Will only use these if no argument is made in the round)

1] Theory is drop the argument, no rvis, competing interps, fairness and education are voters anything else is not.

2] Permissibility negates, presumption negates until the negative introduces a counter-advocacy

3] I'll default to util if no framework argument is made

4] The aff gets to weigh the case vs the K

5] T > Theory > K = Case

6] Truth testing (I probably err towards comparative worlds once an argument is made for it tho)

"All are Allowed, Simply Improve" - Julian Kuffour

Novice LD:

Hi I'm Archit. This is my fourth year of debate at Lexington High School and I qualified to the TOC 2x. I've done circuit, tech debate and also done lay debate. Anything is fine with me.

Debate the way that you are most comfortable and I'll evaluate the round the best I can. I will evaluate the rounds based on arguments made and not ethos but ethos can be used to determine speaks.

You do not need to give voters, read a value (though you should read a value criterion/framework) or repeat arguments.

If you want to read advanced positions go ahead, but please consider your opponent.

How to get high speaks:

1] Weigh - This can win you 99 percent of novice debates. Say your impacts outweigh on magnitude, probability, timeframe etc. and explain why that weighing mechanism matters most.

2] Collapse - you don't need to extend every contention, chose 1 or 2 that are best and explain them in depth and weigh them against your opponents args.

3] Don't have a values debate (I don't care if morality or justice matter more, debate over your value criterions instead (i.e util vs deontology or structural violence for example).

4] Be respectful, and use CX strategically.

Jonathan Levenson Walpole High School 6 rounds

Leo Li Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Rui Ma Concord Carlisle High School 4 rounds

Lavanya Manoharan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 4 rounds

David McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School 6 rounds

Elizabeth Murno Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 14, 2023 at 10:24 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Murno, I use she/her pronouns, I went to Harrison High School and debated for 4 years. I currently go to Wellesley College and major in Philosophy and double minor in political theory and media studies.

IMPORTANT

Time yourself please I HATE cutting people off but I will not flow any args made after the timer. Finish your sentence but be reasonable.
Tech and Truth? I will default to whoever is winning the argument, even if I don't agree with it or think it's false it's not up to me if it was dropped. HOWEVER, If the clash is such a wash and there is literally nothing else I can evaluate the debate one, I WILL GO FOR TRUTH. This also makes me inclined to actually read your evidence, especially when it's a hard decision to make. However, DO NOT RELY ON ME TO INTERVENE.

Prefs

Ks - 1

Non-T performance - 1

Soft Left K/K aff - 1

Theory - 3

LARP - 5/6

Phil - 5

Tricks - Strike

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

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

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

Larp

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

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

T/Theory

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

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

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

For Novice LD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punitha Natarajan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 2 rounds

Shashank Rajvanshi Lexington HS 2 rounds

Xinping Ren Brookline High School 6 rounds

Tajaih Robinson Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Aavedon Roy Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 26, 2022 at 4:54 AM EDT

Email= Aavedonroy@gmail.com

Novice

Read your case and don't worry about the rest of the paradigm. Make sure to do weighing in your later speeches and collapse to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well.

I did policy, pf and ld. I have dyslexia and adhd. In policy, I did LARP debate. In PF I did LARP and lay debate. In LD I did disability K debate, and some frivolous theory.

Quick Prefs

I can’t understand spreading except off the doc be full warned

Identity K’s/Phil K’s - 1

Tricks -2

Phil-2

Lay 3-

Larp-4

Specifics

I did policy, pf and ld. I have dyslexia and adhd. In policy, I did LARP debate. In PF I did LARP and lay debate. In LD I did disability K debate, and some frivolous theory.

I went 1-5 at columbia, 1-6 camp tournament , 2-4 stanford and emory. I beat such amazing novices from newark, a Strake kid who wasn’t trying, and people not understanding my wiki. I also frequently posted on Debate Meme groups.

I can understand spreading but please send a speech doc. If you don't have a speech doc don't spread. If you don't want to send your opponent's analytics that's stupid but 100% send it to me.

I'm not a Phil debater so unless your reading Kant, util, objectivism, libertinism, Virtue ethics, Pragmatism, Deleuze,Hobbes, Negative Util, SV, Heidegger, Spinoza, Determinism, Tricks, Delibrative Democracy, Foucault, Alienation, Levinas, Agmben then I can't understand it so you might not want to read.

I'm a big fan of combining Phil and K debate combined.

Tech over truth ( except for ableism/accessibility) unless the round is clearly inaccessible ( like actually because someone is spreading and other people can't). If your opponent asks you to slow down then slow down.

If your arguments aren't warranted and your opponent drops it I will vote on it but if both sides aren't warranted then I will do weighing on my own.

I give novices an auto 29 if they run tricks. Like, on one hand, I love you for running tricks in novice year but at the same time, you should be learning the basics of LD.

Asking for a 30 gets you an 27 in speaks.

If you run a k/ theory please run it well. Most debaters don't really understand k which makes me sad so please try to make it coherent.

Theory: I default to reasonability, no rvi, drop the argument (if it's coherent) unless contested.

You can run kaff in front of me if it's an identity k but if it's not an identity k I would prefer not.

my email is aavedonroy@gmail.com

If you want 30's- weigh, speak clearly, and warrant your argument.

If you have a disability I understand that speaks can be harsh so if you want to tell me ahead of time.

Don't vote off word pics unless it's clearly offensive. Ok I will vote on it if it's dropped but like stop acting words that clearly aren't offensive are.

Evidence Ethics is bad but I won't vote off middle paragraph, or brackets unless it's actually bad. I will weigh it as a theoryshell.

Annika Ruda Hire 6 rounds

Yumio Saneyoshi Lexington HS 6 rounds

Karen Scarmozzino Chaminade High School 6 rounds

Andrew Schneider Brookline High School 6 rounds

Mike Schneider Arlington High School 4 rounds

Lin Shi Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 2 rounds

Zachary Siegel Scarsdale High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 13, 2023 at 4:32 PM EDT

New Updates:

Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.
I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.
Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD, where I broke at the TOC twice. I now coach LD at Scarsdale and attend Princeton '25, pursuing a major in computer science and minors in philosophy and mathematics.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I have the most experience judging theory and philosophical framework debates. I have less experience judging policy and K debates, although I will do my best to evaluate all rounds in a non-interventionist manner. I feel fine judging clash debates (e.g. policy v K) but you might not want me in the back of the room if the round comes down to a technical policy debate.

Some musings:

Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.
I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.
I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.
I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.
I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.
Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

Conal Thomas-McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun July 9, 2023 at 4:52 PM EDT

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 4

LARP: 4

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 4 if you like Ks and LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I ~~of course~~ won't ~~on face not~~ vote on them~~, but please reconsider reading them~~.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Becca Traber Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 9, 2023 at 1:33 PM EDT

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Bingquan Wang Boston Latin School 6 rounds

Zi Wang Eastern Middle School 2 rounds

Paul PJ Wexler Needham High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 17, 2023 at 12:51 PM EDT

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech
Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows.

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

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

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

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

ALSO...

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

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

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding Arlington HS specifically.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

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

ALSO...

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

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Arlington High by team consensus does not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

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

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

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

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

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

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

Di Wu Briarcliff 3 rounds

Jarvis Xie Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 14, 2023 at 11:25 AM CDT

Things that can get you higher speaks:

AUTO 30:doing a question on one of my math/cs psets
AUTO 30 (for online): Give the 1AC/1NC with either your little brother/sister staring at the screen in the background or with your pet (dog/cat/turtle/etc.) in your arms/visibly near the screen
+1.0: GETTING ME FOOD (protein bars/shakes and anything meat is nice, but nothing too unhealthy (except maybe boba))
+1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
+0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
+0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
+0.5: Reading unique and strategic tricks/theory that I haven't seen before
+0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
+0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Naruto, Office, One Piece, etc.)
+0.3: Being funny
+0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
+0.2/-0.2: Feel free to play music pre-round: if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Lil Uzi Vert, and Trippie Redd, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task

Note:

I haven't judged/thought about debate in a little less than a year and I have no clue what the topic is so keep that in mind

Shortcut:

I debated for 3 years at Strake Jesuit and got 12 bids. Email: jarvisxie03@gmail.com

T/Theory: 1

Basic Phil: 1

LARP: 2

Basic K: 2

Tricks: 2

Weird Phil/Weird K: 4

Debate is a game. Tech over truth. I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Login to Tabroom:

Lexington Winter Invitational

2023 — Lexington, MA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

Judges