Lakeland Westchester Classic
2023 — NY/US
LD Novice Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi! I'm Mattew (not a typo) Anazco, and I'm a senior at Harrison High School in Harrison, NY. I transferred to Harrison from Staples High School in Westport, CT, where I did 3 years of traditional Lincoln-Douglas debate for a local league program before coming to Harrison. I'm not an active member of Harrison's team, but I'm familiar with the fundamentals of debate. I'm currently committed to Cornell University in the College of Engineering, but my heart remains with debate!
I want to see rounds with genuine clash and arguments with warrants that are fleshed out. I want to see clear reasons you link to a framework on both sides - otherwise, I won't have a clear way to evaluate the round. Please give voting issues, and don't use debate jargon or spread! I will do my best to evaluate the round based on what you tell me. Be sure to extend the warrants for your cards, not just the names. Real world examples and statistics are helpful.
Have a great round!
for email chains: email@example.com
Please include me in the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi I'm Thomas Berg, I'm a senior varsity debater at Harrison high school.
Overall I'm fine with all positions. Considering you are probably a novice do what you feel you are good at, please don't try to spread or read circuit arguments unless you know how to. Follow speech times and be respectful/nice to your opponents. Being annoying in cross x is not persuasive just answer the questions. If I think you are promoting harmful ideas in the debate space (I.E: Racism, Homophobia, ect.), I will drop you.
Please try to weigh impacts under each framework so I know what to vote for. Apart from the exception above I will not intervene in the decision. Even if I find an argument is stupid or wrong I will vote on it if it's not addressed by the other debater. Please give me a good framework debate, explain why their framework is wrong, not just that you preclude it. Otherwise claim, warrant and impacts are the way to go. I care about evidence ethics so try to have carded arguments on case.
Circuit People: Don't be mean to novices. If your opponent is reading a lay aff don't go 6 off reading theory and T. I agree with most of what Chetan Hertzig's paradigm says.
Tech>Truth except for "Ism"'s (racism, sexism, homophobia ect.)
Reasonability on messy violation stories ("oh I told you in person before round") and probably on IVIs (I need to agree to some extent they were violent to the space, don't treat IVI's like spikes)
Ks - 1 (Please understand ur lit)
Trad debate - 2 (if done well really good but kinda boring)
LARP, or phil - 2 (extinction scenarios are easy to vote on if you conceded util, and please understand the phil you read, don't run incomprehensible phil) *Sidenote TRY OR DIE ON 100 PONT LINK CHAINS ow/ magnitude
Performance - 3 (just explain why you are non T and why it's important, the only reason it's 3 is because I'm not used to running it but I'll vote for it for sure)
Theory I agree with - 3 (Real abuse should be checked, I think theory overall is good: default to RVIs, competing interps
High theory Ks - 4 (If I can't articulate my ballot, I'm not voting for you. Maybe I'm the problem but mumbo jumbos of words are not warrants)
Friv Theory - 4 (If you read lots of frivolous shells you have lost my ballot, read theory when actual abuse happens, why couldn't you engage without it, implicate it to the round)
Tricks - strike
(Extra) Give me a song recommendation before the round and if I like it I will increase your speaks by 0.3 points.
See you in Round !
I debated LD extensively in high school. I am comfortable judging LD, policy, and PF. LD is my first love.
I flow very closely. I look at the value and VC and see if you can convince me that your contentions and evidence consistently support your position. I also pay very close attention to rebuttals. I need you to attack the contentions explicitly. I like a "crystallization" if you will at the end of your final speech on the main issues.
Please do not have a war over evidence- I need evidence to be accurate and cited but more than that its a waste of time.
I do pay attention to delivery - I am not a fan of spreading but I accept is as part of the norm.
At the end of the day, I consider this activity to be essential in my development as a person and recall my debate days quite fondly.
I hope you have fun and come to the round with a mindset to learn and grow.
PLEASE NOTE - FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS- DO NOT TURN OFF YOUR CAMERAS. I AM FINE WITH DISCLOSURES PROVIDED THEY ARE TWO WAY AND AGREED UPON MUTUALLY. PLEASE DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE ELSE DURING THE ROUND IN REFERENCE TO THE DEBATE ITSELF AND FOR COACHING - THIS IS UNETHICAL AND VIOLATES NSDA rules (refer to the unified manual). Furthermore, sharing the cases during your round with other teammates violates the rules.
I find it sad that I have to even add this to my paradigm.
email@example.com - please use this to add me to the chain. Please do not send me emails regarding my final decisions.
I have been a coach and consultant for the past 24 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at UTNIF and also at Stanford. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.
If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.
In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.
In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.
I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.
I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing yours and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
My name is Tasneem (she/her), I am a 3rd year debater with experience in both PF and LD. email: firstname.lastname@example.org
First, have fun! Debate is a game and meant to be lots of enjoyable! I would love it if you read creative and interesting arguments. Don't stress!
1. I need CLEAR arguments. If you can't explain it in your own words, don't read it.
2. Most important to me is comparison: you must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponent's!! Write my RFD in your last speech. I like hearing
- worlds comparison: weigh the aff world to the neg world and what happens in each
- a list of voters highlighting key issues of the round / why you win this round
- good signposting
- good rhetoric and speech skills
- demonstrating deep topic knowledge -> this is really important to me, make sure you know your case in & out
3. I will vote off the flow. Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh.
4. I will not time your prep or speeches - it is up to you and your opponent. Don't abuse this trust.
5. I do not flow cross but I listen. If something important happens in cross, tell me in your next speech and I'll flow it. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep.
6. Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will be an auto loss.
7. Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. But, if I can’t flow the speech, I will probably dock speaker points. IF I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT, I WON'T FLOW IT.
8. Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.
9. Feel free to ask questions after the round, I love answering them.
For LD specifically:
Spend time on the framework debate! I really like philosophical debate and evaluate it first.
MAKE SURE you collapse and simplify the round in the 2nr or 1/2ar.
No new responses in 2n/2ar. I will not flow them.
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: email@example.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. :)
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.
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!).
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.
My expectations for debaters:
--- Speak clearly and confidently in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.
--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.
--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.
--- Signpost in your speeches.
--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.
--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!
Please send me your cases firstname.lastname@example.org, it's easier for me to flow when I can read along.
First of all, thank you for all the hard work behind this.
Enjoy and learn from the process.
Respect your opponents.
I expect you are very familiar with the material instead of just reading the doc.
I value comparison. So clearly tell me why your evidences outweigh the opponent's! Write my RFD in your last speech.
Hello, I am Elizabeth. I am a lay/local parent judge with a background in education.
Please do not spread. Debate should be accessible; your speaker score will not thank you if you spread in front of me. You should be speaking at a maximum of 70 percent of your top speed. I will mouth "clear" or "slow" as a warning.
Understanding that I am a lay judge should give you a fair enough idea of what I'm looking for/what I have a good grasp of. But please don't get scared to run things in front of me because of that!
A few key things:
- Avoid tricks
- Avoid theory unless there's genuine abuse/an issue with the opposition's case (no frivolous theory), then feel free to run it in front of me as I've voted on it before
- Kritiks are fine as long as you link your arguments to the resolution. Make sure they're coherent and not just "cap bad- therefore, I win." I'm not too familiar with Ks, so keep that in mind (lay judge), but please do not get scared to run one in front of me.
- Phil is fine if you slow down and explain your reasoning thoroughly; not everyone reads the same authors you do. A layperson should be able to understand what you're getting at.
- LARP is okay; just keep policy jargon to a minimum. We're in LD, after all.
- Signpost, signpost, signpost! Make it easy for me to flow.
- Your warrants and extensions should be crystal clear- slow down on tags and remember to verbally pause or say quote/unquote so I know what's part of a card or not.
- If you're rude to your opponent, it will not go well for you.
Overall, just debate in the way you're most comfortable with, just as long as you're not abusive in your practice. In a round, I will judge what you say and stay completely unbiased (tech > truth). Debate should be fun; getting experimentative with your argumentation should be 100% fine, no matter your experience level.
You're welcome to email me at email@example.com to disclose your case. I'd highly prefer it if you did so, as it would make it significantly easier for me to analyze your arguments.
Good luck to all of you! Debate is a great activity.
It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.
1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.
2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.
3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.
4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.
5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.
6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.
A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.
B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.
C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.
D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.
E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.
I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.
I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is email@example.com
Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.
Hi, I'm Aaron Shao (He/Him). I'm a junior at Lexington High School and this is my third year doing LD. I compete on the local and national circuit.
Add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Quick Overview For Novices:
SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches).
Arguments should be extended through the flow. I will not evaluate new responses in the 2AR.
Do not use CX to prep- asking good questions will increase your speaks.
Make sure to do WEIGHING in your later speeches and COLLAPSE to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well. I tend to vote for well warranted/impacted arguments.
Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc. Don't be a jerk against a Novice, i.e. spreading like crazy, reading Ks/Theory/Tricks.
A note on complex arguments, its been a while since I've done any major debating so be sure to flesh out arguments and clearly explain links.
Thanks and have a good round!
Theory is alright, and I sometimes read topicality and disclosure. I can remember my novice years when I depended on theory for rounds lol.
I understand basic phil arguments. If you're reading something more complex, clearly explain links and weighing though you're probably better off reading something else.
I don't enjoy listening to tricks. Stacking tricks is pretty abusive.
I read these, kritiks are great. Extinction outweighs is a good argument, so you probably need k turns case, alt solves, etc. or else I'll probably vote for case outweighs. Like phil, I haven't read a lot of k literature so should be well explained. Good kritiks can be fun to listen to.
You can read a k aff if you want. I haven't read a lot of k literature so unless you want me to be confused, you're better off reading something else.
I also read these a lot. I'm very used to evaluating policy v policy debates.