I debated LD my freshman through junior years of high school (11-14), then moved to PF my senior year (14-15). Went to state freshman, junior, and senior years, finishing third at state my senior year. In terms of arguments I do or don't like in round, there aren't any I would give preference to. So if you want to run a counter plan or make some theoretical arguments I'll evaluate them, but if I think you're running theory just for the sake of running theory I'll dock your speaks.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2013-2017 in LD and was briefly a part of the Kansas University Debate team. I judge periodically and I enjoy watching past debate recordings on Youtube. Here's my favorite :) Scottsdale CD v Interlake AL

Add me to the email chain: will@sorrelslaw.com

My Paradigm

- In round (and outside of round for that matter) show your opponents the respect you ought to have for yourself.

- I'm okay with speed (6/10-8/10 with 10/10 being Ram Prasad in TOC Quarters and 1/10 being NSDA Finals in 2019). At the bare minimum just slow down on taglines, author names, and in rebuttals. Also, be clear. If you are going to go fast, it should at least be clear, otherwise just slow down, you probably don't need that last D&G card... I will let you know if you are going too fast or being unclear.

- I am a believer in truth over tech. However, at the end of the day, do what you are comfortable with and have fun.

• To expand on the above point; frivolous theory, confusing kritiques, and floating PICs are not my cup of tea.. but if you like them, don't let me stand in your way of running them, just explain them thoroughly.
• Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, and framework debates are my cup of tea. I enjoy clashing ideas about the topic assigned by our glorious NSDA overlords. Education is important after all :)

- Jokes are welcome, as long as they don't come at the expense of the person you are debating

- Speaker points are determined by your strategy, speaking skill, CX, and decorum with your opponent.

- I will vote on anything as long as it is justified as a ballot-winning position.

• Give me voters.
• Weigh your arguments.
• Be clear on how you are winning compared to your opponent and why I should vote for you.

The rest of my paradigm is stolen from my former teammate Joey Georges who stole it from Neville Tom

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Strake Jesuit '19 | UT Austin '23 | SMU Law '26

He/Him/His

Email Chain/Questions: caden.day@utexas.edu

Please start an email chain as early as you can before the round starts. Also, I can absolutely tell when you are stealing prep while "trying to get the email to send" or while "waiting for the email to send." Please don't do that.

TLDR

Tech>Truth. Read anything that isn't exclusionary. Warrant everything (cards, analytics, extensions, etc.). Extend all parts of your arguments (including turns).

Tech>Truth

You can genuinely read anything in front of me as long as it's explained well. I'm most familiar with/primarily read Theory, Plans/CPs, off-case Disads, soft-left Ks, and framework/philosophical arguments. I am less familiar with non-t arguments and tricks. But again, read them if that's your style! I can keep up.

Tricks without warrants will be treated similarly to any other argument without a warrant—they will be given very little credence. So, if you plan on reading tricks, don't just dump them on the flow. Take time to explain the warranting in them.

There is, of course, the obvious exception to my "read anything" policy, which is that I ask you to foster an inclusive and educational environment.

Speaking Style and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy. I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are going to read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names. If, in later speeches, you aren't relying on a doc, dial back the speed a bit so I don't miss anything.

I will dock your speaker points if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. Tell me if you have disclosed your cases because I won't check for you.

Summary/Final Focus

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each). Extensions of taglines or claims alone are insufficient. Please please please extend warranting and analysis.

Similarly, if going for link turns, extend the impact that you're co-opting; if going for impact turns, extend the link that you're co-opting.

Miscellaneous Stuff

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Defensive extensions should be in every speech - it is not sticky.

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded.

Any misrepresented evidence that is called to my attention by your opponents will be struck from the flow. In especially egregious cases, I reserve the right to severely dock your speaks or drop you outright.

If you have more specific questions, don't be afraid to ask them before rounds! Similarly, if you have questions about my decision after the round, ask away! It won't impact your speaks or my decision or anything like that. I want you to leave the round with a better understanding of my RFD if you feel confused.

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.

General/TLDR

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.

-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).

- CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:

General

Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.

Rebuttal

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Summary

My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.

Final

I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.

Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.

I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 2

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc

Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.

DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

Strake Jesuit '19

Contact: jhdowdall19[at]mail[dot]strakejesuit[dot]org

Update for the Strake RR: I haven't judged since NDF, but I reread my paradigm and still agree with most of it.

Technicians over truth.

Evaluating the Round

First, framing and weighing: I will attempt to figure out what arguments are the most important based on any framing and weighing read in the round. If there is none, I will default to CBA and wait until the last step to figure out the most important offense.

Second, I will evaluate topicality, theory, kritik or any other pre-fiat arguments. For T and theory I will default to drop the argument. If you do proper weighing, I’m willing to evaluate substance first.

Third, evaluating links/link stories: I will evaluate both sides links to see how strong they are in the context of the round; this will determine to what extent your impact matters.

Fourth, comparing impacts (hopefully your weighing will tell me how I should do this); otherwise I’ll probably have to intervene.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal should Frontline. Turns and defense from first rebuttal not addressed in second rebuttal are conceded.

Rebuttal (especially second rebuttal) should not have long offensive overviews. I won't vote you down for this, but you'll lose speaks and I'll be very receptive to theory against this.

Summary

Don’t go for everything and weigh.

First summary should extend defense on whatever argument second rebuttal goes for.

Extensions need to be a good bit more than “extend this card.”

Final Focus

I will not vote off of any offense that was not in summary.

It is not too late to do some weighing (but I will be less receptive to it than weighing that has been consistently done since rebuttal or summary).

Card Calling

I’ll call for cards when they sound sketchy, when I am told to call for them, or when opposing cards directly contradict each other with no interaction.

Progressive Args

Theory

I prefer theory in shell format, and I am more receptive to it in outrounds and at bid tournaments (in other words don't use theory as a way of excluding people or getting an easy win).

Kritiks

Not super familiar with them but I've had an LDer explain them to me at least two times. I'll try my best.

Disclosure

0.5 extra speaks to any team that discloses their case on the NDCA PF wiki at least 30 minutes before the round.

Another 0.5 speaks to any team that flashes or emails me and their opponents their case and speech docs.

Make sure you tell me if you disclosed, so I can add the the extra speaks.

Misc.

Don't grill me if you didn't watch the round

If your opponents read a non-unique and a turn, the non-unique needs to be explicitly conceded in the next speech for the turn to go away.

If the round has absolutely no offense, I will default to the first speaking team.

Ask questions if you have any.

I'm a basic technopop over truth judge.

I really just want basic PF (don't hit me with Ks, DAs, theory, etc. unless you really have to). I strongly prefer to judge the actual topic.

Please don't go too fast in front of me.

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

谢谢!

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

Strake Jesuit '18

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email: pierce.hollier@duke.edu

Important update/note: I am putting this up here because I don't want to go through I find all the places that I've talked about it in the text below. I am not going to enforce disclosure/speech docs in any win/loss way. It will only serve to increase your speaks

Feel free to ask me if there is any uncertainty about what parts apply and don't. If you read a turn in first rebuttal and the second rebuttal drops it, the first summary still needs to extend it. I don't require the first summary to extend defense that isnt frontlined but I do require all offense in the summary. If the first summary drops a nonfrontlined turn and then they bring it up in first final focus the most I give is terminal defense on the argument, you no longer get offense since you dropped it summary.

PF Paradigm (a lot of this is copied from my partner's (Daniel Wang) paradigm):

-I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, qualified to TFA state 3 years and finished in semis senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year.

-Please be pre-flowed prior to the round.

-If you have 5 minutes before a round and failed to read my entire paradigm, here is the short version (even though you should have read the whole thing since I'm not including many specifics in here that are important):

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism or sexism good. Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me or make me think that you're not good at debate. Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I am truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level. (Read Below)

On disclosure theory: Winning AT: Ask Me or AT: I'll Email it is incredibly easy in front of me. There's probably a norm-setting argument that you can win incredibly easily if they refuse to disclose on wiki but say they'll email you, etc. If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.

B. Conceded arguments are 100% true. There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Also, the implication needs to be there at some point or else I will make it up for you.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important. I would prefer you send (or disclose) cases, and all evidence in later speeches to me via an e-mail chain. Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. Speaker points are also affected by this. Read below for more details. You always should disclosed. Read below. Disclosure will get you better speaks.

D. Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it. Defense does not need to be in 1st summary if dropped, but the implication does need to be there (by the final focus) at some point or else I will make it up for you.

Also, please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred. You can start doing more big picture in Final Focus but make sure you're still winning on the technical level because I don't care about persuasion.

E. Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there is minimal abuse. You should be aware that my threshold for responses to really friv theory probably gets lower as the theory gets more friv.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are not arguments.

G. There are a lot of different ways to extend evidence. You can say concession of x or you've conceded x. You don't have to say extend each time. That gets way too repetitive but if you want, I don't care.

H. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

I. 2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!!!!!! Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in summary, GG.

J. If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker point because calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them. It's also really obvious that some teams do it to mess with their opponents.

K. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep when you stand up or while waiting for evidence exchanges. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. [Exception for TOC due to rules]. Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks.

L. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it. This is a time when I would be ok with what most people would call intervention.

However, you should probably read the whole paradigm because most of it is important. Also, I understand this paradigm is probably really long. Also, as a debater I liked very long and detailed paradigms so I decided to do this.

General Stuff:

-I don't care what you wear (within reason of course) and judges that do are messed up. If you want to take off your coat and tie, I don't care. I did that a bunch when I debated.

-All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument.

However, there are a few hard rules that are part of debate.

1. Speech times are set.

2. Prep Time is set (2 minutes typically, even though that's an absurdly short amount of time)

3. I vote for one team and one team only.

4. Evidence needs author last name/year.

Anything else is alright. I'm not going to hurt you for not reading quals. However, if someone challenges the quals or cred of the author (which I think is usually a really bad argument) then have them on hand.

IMPORTANT!!!!! READ BELOW:

I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded following my paradigm of conceded arguments being true. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested. However, this does not mean I want teams reading 50 crappy blocks/"arguments" against the other team. All arguments need to have a warrant and implication. If there isn't one, I probably won't evaluate it.

-If I am on a panel, obviously adapt to the other judges and I will gladly follow what you do because I understand that my paradigm differs from the "community norm."

HOWEVER, read the below section because it is pretty important:

Disclosure (Very Important):

Pre-Round Disclosure:

-The coin flip should happen about 15 minutes before the round (25-30 minutes for flight 2). I'm not really going to be able to enforce this, I just don't want you delaying the round because of it. I put this in because I just think it's good for the education and helps disclosure. I understand that it could be hard to find your opponents amongst the huge crowd of debaters. That being said, refusing to flip for no good reason will make me sad. This is a sad trend that we are seeing in which teams don't flip until literally 30 seconds before the round starts. That kills all pre-round prep advantage and time. The affirmative should tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is "new aff." If it is a new plan but the same advantages, the aff should disclose the advantages being read, but does not have to disclose the plan. Same is true of new advantages. If you swap out a few cards but it's the same advantage, the AFF should say same advantage with new cards. Changing a few cards does not mean it's a new AFF. Since this is PF, you should also tell your opponents what the neg is before the debate, the same rules still apply.

-If you lie about what will be read to your opponents and they can prove it, I will really lower your speaks and maybe down you depending on what happened. Please don't make me evaluate this kind of thing.

-If the other team can prove to me that they asked to flip and you refused to do so, I will dock your speaker points for the round. If they can prove that they asked for what AFF/NEG and you didn't tell them, I'll also be sad. Also anyone can make theory arguments out of these scenarios.

-If you are at a circuit tournament and they pointed out that you haven't disclosed and tell me why that's a bad thing, I'm sorry but there's not much you can do after that. I lean truth>tech on the disclosure debate. You need to win tech > truth first in you want to go that route on disclosure theory. However, you should meet your interpretation.

-One exception: If you read disclosure against a team that are clearly novices, I will still vote you up, but don't be excited about your speaker points.

NDCA Wiki Disclosure:

-Teams SHOULD disclose all broken positions on the NDCA PF Wiki. I think most arguments against disclosure are pretty silly, and don't worry too much about whether or not the violation can be verified. I will check their wiki for you. To encourage disclosure I will make it so that your speaker points can be altered by you disclosing.

-I start everyone around a 27.0. Basically, the highest speaks you're getting by not disclosing is a 28.9-29.4 (assuming you are absolutely perfect). However, if you do disclose, I will give you a 1 point bonus.

-Also, if your case is paraphrased, you don't have cards to disclose. Therefore, paraphrased stuff does not count as disclosure and don't try disclosing paraphrased cases cause I don't know how you can do it. Copying and pasting your case without citations is absurd/awful. There's no way for other people to check your evidence and see the validity of it since most of it is probably power-tagged. If you read paraphrased cases, you have to disclose the cut cards properly as if you're reading a case with cut cards in it and make the paraphrasing the tag of the card or somewhat similar.

Evidence Ethics:

-I am strong believer in cut cards. I believe that paraphrasing is ok... (not really) but since it is a norm so deeply rooted in PF, it probably won't change. However, I believe strongly in arguments against paraphrasing. I am fine with paraphrasing bad theory and am willing to vote on it. MAKE SURE YOU DEFINE PARAPHRASING IN A FINE WAY THAT EXCLUDES CUT CARDS. READ A DEFINITION. Otherwise, you are probably not going to win this theory debate despite me wanting to vote on it. Don't make me sad!! Also, please frontline the common but not true responses to paraphrasing good.

-Also, if you see below, if you paraphrase evidence, you will lose out on a speaker point bonus. Bottom line: Cut Cards. It's not that hard to cut cards. Also, you need cut cards to be able to disclose on the wiki. As I say somewhere else in my paradigm, it is absurd to be able to read 25 pieces of evidence in the case.

-I am extremely pissed off at teams who misconstrue evidence and then proceed to win because of that evidence. Thus, I am going to take a hardline stance against that. If I see that you misconstrued evidence beyond what I JUDGE TO BE a honest mistake or lack of knowledge of statistics, I will give you no higher than a 25 and possibly a big L and report you to tab if it is bad enough or it happens too many times. One big thing is that one standard deviation is not 1%.

-Also, I would prefer teams to start an email chain with your case w/ the cut cards or at least hyperlinks and send it to: pierce.hollier@duke.edu. Make the subject: "Round -- Tournament Round Number -- Aff Code vs Neg Code"

-This means send every speech doc for the round to me so I can make sure you aren't miscutting or clipping cards. Prep time stops when you are done editing the doc. Emailing doesn't count. However, if you are taking a long time, I will start your prep time again, If I am suspecting that you are stealing prep, your speaks will get hurt. Emailing should take around 30-40 seconds at max. If you can't go to your email, drag the speech doc and hit send, you're doing something else and that means that you are stealing prep.

-If you don't know how to make a speech doc, learn how to make one. Verbatim is a great tool for debate and it's 2018. Teams should be able to go paperless by now (in terms of evidence). If you have a student email you can get Microsoft Word for free by just creating an Office 365 account with that email.

-All evidence should be sent to me since this event's evidence ethics are awful.

-If you misrepresent cards, miscut, or clip, I am willing to give you a L<20. I will intervene in this situation. If you read cut cards for your rebuttal instead of paraphrasing, I will give you and your partner a speak reward for good norms.

-If you can't find the evidence within a couple minutes, your speaks are getting a little bump down and that evidence is getting dropped. You should always cut cards before you paraphrase so they should be available but if you read cut cards you won’t have this problem.

Speaker Points:

-I give speaker points based on strategy. Clarity also matters, but is an extremely marginal factor in deciding what speaker points I give you. I do not care about persuasion. It's about what you say in round. You can speak pretty but be extremely bad on the flow and I will not hesitate to give a 27.7 out.

-I'll call clear/slow 3 times before I start deducting points. Strategy > Clarity. First, I start everyone around a 27. If you do disclose, I will reward you with a bonus by starting at a 28.0 and move up and down from there on increments of 0.1 based on strategy/argumentation. If you read cut cards in your case and disclose, I will generally like you more. Basically, read cut cards if you want higher speaks. It's absurd how people can hint at 40 authors in one case because you can somehow paraphrase the article in one sentence.

-If you're in the bubble round, I will probably be more generous with speaker points since I know how much it sucks to be 4-2 or 5-2 and not break. Humor and roasting your opponents to a certain extent will boost your speaks.

-If you say "I'm sorry [insert name of opponents], but you're going to lose. I'm going to finals" -[TFA State 2017 LD Semifinals] before your final speech and then you win, I will probably reward you. If you lose, no punishment. You'll just be embarrassed for saying that and your opponents can laugh at you.

I will boost your speaks if you do any of the following well:

A) Utilizing a daring strategy i.e. kicking case and going for turns, etc. Going for 2/4 minutes on the RVI against theory or T. Going for one link turn and weighing the crap out of it.

B) Turning the case for 4 minutes in the 2nd constructive and 4 more minutes in the rebuttal and actually doing it well.

C) Weighing in rebuttal/case and telling me the implication of each argument or doing stuff that falls under the "util" section of my paradigm.

Speed:

-If you know me, you probably know I preferred faster debate. This means that I am fine with speed. HOWEVER, DO NOT SPEED UP/SPREAD IF YOU CAN'T!!! I will deduct speaks for doing so. Slow down on tags and author names!! If you don't slow for those things you're gonna have a bad time.

-Also if you spread, you must be reading cut cards in the tag, cite, card format. If you're paraphrasing and you spread A. I'll miss your author name and B. Usually there's no distinction between cards since you won't be reading tags and I’ll miss a bunch of random stuff. So maybe you shouldn't paraphrase.

-I will say "clear" or "slow" 3 times before I start deducting speaks.

-Also please slow down on analytics or else I might not catch everything you say. If you blaze through a theory dump and get 5 points out in 10 seconds, I'm definitely going to miss stuff.

-Delineate between tags and the card. As you move on from a card to an analytic, just be clear. When you move from a card to a new tag, say "aannnd" The only oral citation that you need is the author last name/year. So like Smith 17. Institution and author credentials aren't necessary, but can help you with evidence comparison.

-If you spread, please give your opponent's your speech doc either by email, flashdrive, pass pages, or a viewing computer.

-Please signpost!!!! If you don't, I will be very very sad and probably miss a lot of your arguments/be delayed by 3-5 seconds, so don't be mad if you were blazing through your arguments at 400WPM and didn't signpost.

Generics:

-I am tab which means I will buy almost any argument (yes this includes nuclear war (Danny and I won pretty much all of our Septober 17 rounds on this)) if it is warranted correctly. I also will not intervene. You need to make all of the analysis. However, if a link turn is straight-up conceded your extensions of the impacts can be blippy (but if you don't weigh them after extension your opponent could still win). Don't double turn yourself. In addition, my threshold for extensions is pretty low if it's actually conceded. If they concede a contention for example, take 10 seconds to extend the whole contention.

-Also, I will not vote on offensive arguments. Death good is fine, but racism good is probably not. However, you do the weighing and meta-weighing for all other arguments.

-TLDR: Tech > Truth (except disclosure). Conceded arguments are 100% true. Make arguments for why some weighing mechanism should come first. However, I am willing to assign 0-risk to something meaning that magnitude doesn't matter. Also, 0-risk means no risk of offense. Strength of link weighing is probably the best way to get my ballot. If something is conceded, I give it 100% strength of link and conceded arguments are true.

-My philosophy is pretty simple: I will take the least interventionist approach to judging debates. However, I will intervene if what you say is blatantly wrong i.e. the United States is in Europe, etc. Please make some jokes. Keep them somewhat appropriate. I am willing to reward humor.

-I also will not intervene to clear up a muddled argument if nobody does any of the stuff I want that falls under the "util" section in my paradigm. In the case where the round is way too muddled, presumption flows neg if neg defends squo. Otherwise, if neg reads a CP or defends some alternate world, presumption flows aff. I can be persuaded otherwise, just justify your arguments for why. The above is just a default in the event that nobody makes a single argument about presumption.

RFDs:

-If the tournament allows it, I will disclose and provide an oral RFD with speaker points included. If you want to grill me, that's fine, but wait until after I am done giving my RFD. However, if your coach wants to grill me, I will be willing to answer questions ONLY if they watched and flowed the round. Other than that, don't attempt to get your coach to bully me into changing my decision and voting for you. If I am on a panel and at the bottom of a decision, please wait until the other judges are finished before asking questions. If the tournament doesn’t allow for disclosure, then either FB message me or find me somewhere after the round and I’ll disclose/give you a RFD.

-I'm not big on disclosing speaks but I'll do it if everybody wants me to.

Flex Prep:

-Flex prep is fine. If you want a concession for a violation before the NC, go for it. If your opponent is being dodgy in prep, just give up and just know that I dislike people who do that in an attempt to waste prep time.

Overviews:

-Overviews are great. However, overviews are not places where you read evidence/read contention add-ons, etc. Overviews are just telling me whats important and how the round breaks down. If you decide to read basically a new contention as an overview, I will be extremely angry at you and be inclined to drop your speaks. I will still evaluate it ONLY IF YOU READ IT IN FIRST REBUTTAL, NOT THE SECOND. Even then, I'll be unhappy with you. You have a 4 minute case for a reason.

Specific Arguments and Preferences:

Fiat:

-If the topic is a policy implementation topic, the policy is enacted the second you begin reading the first words of the 1AC. This means you can't spec out of Elections DAs or Politics DAs. I believe in massive fiat power i.e. the affirmative can literally spec what the USFG should do with the money or anything. Probability doesn't matter, but you should read a solvency advocate. However, theory arguments can also be read against this strategy so just be aware. "PF doesn't have fiat" is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

-I also default durable fiat meaning that rollback arguments don't apply to the AFF. This is just a default. If you can justify why I should give the AFF durable fiat or vice versa, I am willing to listen to your arguments and make a decision or evaluate the round based on those arguments.

Util Debate:

-I love good util debate. "Good" is the key term, meaning that you should be doing great evidence comparison, impact weighing, link comparison, strength of link weighing, etc. Evidence comparison in LARP debates are your best friend.

-Also, don't throw jargon out there for the sake of it. Doing the above things will earn you extra speaker points especially when it comes to evidence comparison. Also, being proficient at these skills will go a long way in helping your debate success. This is something rarely seen in PF and is what separates good debaters from great debaters.

-Do a lot of line-by-line work here. Evidence quality also probably matters a lot. Make smart arguments on the line-by-line and you'll be happy.

-Case Debate is good. A lot of cases are missing internal links or their internal links are straight garbage. A 1N that recognizes this and takes out the internal links will make me happy. Also, turns are good here. A 2N that collapses to turns and explains/weighs them really well will probably impress me.

-Impact turn debates are great, but they usually get incredibly messy. If you decide to engage in an impact turn debate, make sure you do weighing and evidence comparison. Otherwise, impact turn debates become card wars without any comparison which makes it impossible to resolve.

-Impact Defense is also incredibly important. Good Impact D can bring probability of an adv down to 0% or close to 0% pretty quickly. If you go for a CP, you should still spend some time on case to make it easier.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. If they concede an advantage, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only decide to go for a link or impact turn, you can first spend 8-10 seconds extending that advantage and then proceed to frontline that turn. Obviously if there's a lot of link defense, frontline that and make sure you're doing a lot of good util debate to make the decision easier in your favor.

Underviews:

-I honestly believe that reading a few theoretical/paradigm issue spikes at the bottom of the case can be extremely strategic and give you a massive time advantage in the second half of the round. You can take out minutes of argument with one extension if you have good strategic vision. Just warrant your spikes and you're good.

Orders:

-Please try and refrain from using the term "off-time roadmap" some variant of that, it annoys me: Saying "I'm going to start on their case and come back to mine if time permits" is not the order. You need to tell me where you're starting, preferably on the card name in later speeches and specific contentions. Also, say THE ORDER will be... and BE SPECIFIC ON WHERE YOU'RE GOING. Literally tell me the exact part where you're starting and the specific part where you will proceed to i.e. starting on x card on adv. 1. then adv 2. then Elections DA or something. I get that the order might need to change during speech, if so, MAKE THAT CLEAR WITH SIGNPOSTING.

-Also, say "affirmative" and "negative," not "pro" and "con." Nobody pros a resolution, but you affirm it. Saying those things will just annoy me. I'm not gonna deduct speaks but it just annoys me.

Case:

-PLEASE actually find a card that states what you want it to say. I HATE teams who just make assumptions in case and say that doing x will obviously result in y. Logic is fine but in topics relating to foreign/domestic policy, cards are necessary. Some debaters think they are John Mearsheimer. They aren't. Also, make sure your case is actually well put together. Most cases have weak internal links or are straight up missing them. Seeing this as a debater and making the argument that they are missing an internal link or straight up taking the internal link out will go a long way in winning the round.

Generic Turns:

-Again, this is a strategy that is somewhat underutilized in PF. People have no idea how a 4 minute generic turn dump that can apply to any single affirmative case on a implementation topic can be so strategic. HOWEVER, if you just dump cards and the opponent tells me how they don't apply, that's a problem for you. Sometimes it is way more strategic to go 1OFF (read a DA or T or Theory) and then read a load of turns in the 1NC instead of a 4 minute NC. If you're doing this strategy, do weighing and give implications well as to the role that each turn plays i.e. turns case or a specific link.

Framework:

-You need to win offense under framework. Winning framework means nothing to me if you don't have any offense under it. I will filter all offense in the round through the winning framework. Strength of link weighing will definitely help you if you both have offense under the same framework. Frameworks need to be justified and warranted. Please never read a cost-benefit analysis framework as I default util.

-If you read an alternate framework, read below on phil. I'm also fine with tricky frameworks as long as you justify them. Also, if they read an alternate framework, in order to take it out, you need to put defense on their framework and you need to generate your own framework i.e. util. Otherwise, even if you just put defense on their FW there is still a marginal chance that it is true while you have no framework. Thus, if you are reading an alternate framework, you must read it in constructive otherwise it's incredibly abusive to bust out a new framework in second rebuttal and then force the summary to read new framework offense and put defense on your framework.

-Stuff like Memmi and other framing cards count as an alternate FW. That stuff needs to come in case. Also, Memmi is an awful card. Please read better framework evidence/justifications.

-Recontextualization of your FW to exclude certain arguments is iffy. If the implication was there early on and they just failed to respond, then I guess I'm fine with it. If it isn't there, then I guess it depends how much spin you put on it. If it's a super super unpredictable re-contextualization and you get called out, I'm probably not going to evaluate it.

TJFs:

-TJFs are fine and if you read theoretical justifications, I will instantly default to those as a higher standard than whatever your opponents read; however, the regular theory stuff kicks into play i.e. fairness vs. education, weighing, etc.

Theory:

-I am receptive to theory and have a pretty good understand of how it functions in round. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so.

-However, if theory is run poorly I will deduct speaker points. Also, please run theory in shell format if you don't know how to read good paragraph theory. I absolutely hate paragraph theory that is run poorly. If you want to see what good theory that isn't in shell format is, go watch the 2AC of NDT 2016 Semis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlNgb2dELmU

-Other than that, I will buy theory on almost anything i.e. condo bad, PICs bad, must read advocacy text, but I am also open to listening to the opposite side. You also need to make the arguments for voter weighing i.e. fairness and education.

-Make sure you do Strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's gonna be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded.

-I also REFUSE to gut-check theory. If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc. Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics i.e. defending all AMS on AFF on the SoKo topic.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-I will not default that fairness and education are voters. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. It really does. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs. These are not hard defaults and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments. For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess you're gonna have a bad time. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. Don't worry, I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a shell format. If you want to read T, please read it as a shell format as well as a TVA. If you don't, it just gets hard for me to evaluate and its going to get muddled. I'll try to evaluate but don't make me do that. You need standards/net benefits. Why is being non-T bad? Is there some prep skew, limits arg that you can make? Yes. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

TLDR: If you make topicality arguments against affirmatives without warranting why being non-T or questionably non-T is bad, I probably won't evaluate it. Also, if you read T, you need a definition and interp.

K's:

I'd prefer not. But if they are run correctly then I guess I'll vote on it if you win it. But look for another route to the ballot. I can evaluate them, but don't make me.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (probably going to be hard going for Substance>Theory but you can if you want)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Philosophy:

-Minus an alternate framework, I default to util. However, I started to read a little bit of phil at the end of my junior year. I somewhat understand Kant, Hobbes, and other basic philosophy. If you want to take this approach, have good reasons why your framework comes first and give implications for how your FW controls the round. Please don't read high-theory (DnG, Baudrillard, etc.) as I have little understanding of them.

Plans and Counterplans.

-I believe that plans and counterplans do have a place in PF for most topics. I am not persuaded by NSDA rules because those rules should not exist in the first place. Do some actual topical research instead of writing your cases the night before because you were too lazy to do actual prep and then claim some rules that should not exist in the first place to help you win the round. The affirmative/negative did preparation beforehand, you should do it to. If you run T/theory on it properly, then I can be persuaded. Please make sure you read a plan-text for fiat power and slow down on the advocacy text.

-The advocacy text is binding i.e. you cannot kick out of a plank of the text. Also, please make sure your counterplans are actually mutually exclusive. Textual competition is fine. Make sure you win a net benefit to your CP though. PICs are fine and are probably extremely strategic in a lot of instances, but I am open to theory args against them.

-A permutation is a test of competition unless argued otherwise. Advocacies probably need a solvency advocate. PICs probably need to have a solvency advocate as close as possible to what you are actually advocating for. If they don't, I'll still evaluate it but it makes theory way more compelling.

DAs:

-I really don't understand why PF doesn't have more election/politics DAs in them since half the topics that we debate would probably massively influence the political climate in the United States i.e. abolishing the Electoral College would probably swing the next election.

-I'm fine with all types of DAs. However, the biggest problem with a lot of DAs is that the internal link is really weak or the internal link is completely missing, meaning that affirmatives with good strategic vision should capitalize on this and take out the internal link.

-You also need to weigh the DA i.e. DA turns case/outweighs case and give reasons why. Also, make sure uniqueness doesn't overwhelm the link and it's always good to have a link magnifier in the DA.

Rebuttal Offense-Style Overviews:

-I absolutely hate this style of debate. If you read this, be prepared to get your speaks docked. Also, I am extremely receptive to theory/spikes on this type of argumentation. A new contention/DA in the second summary is super abusive and will most likely get you downed in any other debate event and I will see that you are to in this decision as well if it justifies it. You're not being tricky, you're being stupid and your speaks will reflect that decision.

Speeches:

-I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested.

-I really prefer LINE-BY-LINE in every speech.

-I am fine with the 1NC reading off-case positions, i.e. case turns, DAs to the affirmative instead of a standard "NC."

Rebuttal:

-The second rebuttal does not have to respond to defense, but must address turns as it is offense and the 1st summary should extend it. Also, go line-by-line please. You should also be reading cards. If you read a new overview that is basically a new add-on for case in the second rebuttal or some other argument that doesn't function as turns or a round break-down, I will deduct speaker points.

Summary:

-Please go for 2-3 arguments AT MAX. PLEASE WEIGH!!!!!! If you don't, you may not like my decision because I may have to intervene. Weighing should probably start in summary.

-I believe that the second final focus does not get new weighing unless the weighing first came up in the first final focus and I can be persuaded by second summary gets no new weighing as well if you give justifications at some point before that, preferably in case or rebuttal. I need extensions with card names.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. The best way to clear up a muddled argument is to do a lot of the stuff that falls under the "Util" section above. Do not extend through ink!

-Also, I believe that the summary should definitely go line-by-line. This is how I always debated on the circuit and if you give a great LBL summary, I will boost your speaker points.

Final Focus:

-The final focus should be focused on very similar things to the summary speech. IF IT IS OFFENSE AND NOT IN THE SUMMARY, I WILL NOT EVALUATE IT. Try to refrain from making new implications unless it was something made in the second summary/ first final focus etc. Also as I stated above, the 2nd FF does not get new weighing as that is an argument and no new arguments will be permitted in the 2nd FF.

-Final Focus should probably start going more big picture, but you still need to ensure that you're ahead on the line-by-line. If you decide to go pure line-by-line, I am 100% fine with that and honestly probably prefer that since it makes everything easier to flow and later evaluate. Overviews here are great and make sure break down the round simply for me.

Elkins '19 |TAMU'22| Rice '24

TLDR: Tech>Truth. My debate philosophy is that of the classic flow judge that I vote for the debater with the least mitigated link chain to the best-weighed impact.

Substance/LARP/Theory/K- 1|Heavy fwk- 2 |tricks etc...- 4

PF

1.I look heavily towards the terminal impacts at the end of the round so weighing/crystallization will ultimately be beneficial for you. Just saying, "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc..." does not qualify as proper weighing. Give me the actual reasons/stats as to "how and why" you outweigh on all those fronts.

2. If you guys arrive at the same terminal impact ie; poverty, climate change, war, etc... the first place I look at is the strength of link on both sides.

3.FWK- I default to cost-benefit analysis unless any other fwk is given in round. If any other framework is given in the round, I will hold you to a higher standard in defending that framework. Overviews are fine with me but must come in the first rebuttal (no offensive overviews in the 2nd rebuttal).

4. If you are the 2nd speaking team, you must frontline all offense stemming from the first team's rebuttal. It is preferable if you frontline a good majority of the defense. Any dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

5.Anything said in final focus must have been alluded to in the summary.You guys literally have an extra minute of prep and time for your summary so there should be no excuses in not extending terminal defense and turns AND do some solid weighing. That being said... PLEASE EXTEND YOUR Turns/Terminal Def etc... through both Summary and Final Focus.

6. I know paraphrasing abuse has become more relevant these days so I will typically not have much leniency if I call for evidence and your paraphrasing completely misrepresents the evidence. That being said, it would be a safer bet not to paraphrase. Also, when I call for evidence, I will need to look at the entire article.

7. Speed is fine, just slow down on warrants, authors, and anything extremely important, ie; weighing/stats. But make sure there is clarity and organization (line by line) in all speeches.

8.Speaks: 28-30 usually. If you strategize really well and weigh/crystallize well, I'll give you a 29.5, even if you catch an L.

LD

DA's/Advantages

A lot of advantages/DAs are super contrived, and it’s easy to convince me that impacts short of extinction should matter more. I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." If accessing extinction specifically, as opposed to just a big non-existential impact, is important to your impact-framing arguments, then you should justify that last internal link.

CP

Make sure you specify the status of your Counter Plan in the constructive. If you do not have a properly warranted solvency advocate in the constructive, the chances that I will vote on the counter plan are slim to none. Make sure you establish a strong link chain and ensure that the plan itself is competitive.

Theory/T

Unless it's Disclosure theory, I WILL NOT evaluate any out-of-round abuse. If you want theory to be the highest layer of offense in the debate, make sure you explicitly state it. The only exceptions are theory shells which involve actual real-world norm-setting, that isn't ridiculous (like shoes and clothes theory). For Theory/T, I default to competing interps and Drop the Argument.

Kritiks

I can always appreciate a well-written Kritik, however, do not make an attempt to commodify for the sake of picking up a ballot. Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. Minimum standard of clarity: don't phrase your alternative as an infinitive.None of this "the alt is: to reject, to challenge, to deconstruct, etc" business. It needs a clearly specified actor.

+1 speaker pt for a Starbucks frappuccino mocha/vanilla iced coffee

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic.

If you have any questions, email me at ppj1002@gmail.com

- also for the email chain if need be^

I did four years of PF and graduated in 2018. I won’t know anything about the current topic, so please be clear and define topic jargon! I am also a speaks fairy in a way. SIGNPOST!!!!!

I'd like to think as little as possible, pls do the thinking for me : - ) You can make this easier by signposting, warranting every argument, implicating what each argument means, and collapsing early in the round.

I'm good with average fast PF speaking but prob not spreading (do not worry about speed if you are good with it) - I will flow off a speech doc but please don't abuse it to spam turns. I'll say clear twice

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; defense sticks through first summary if it's not touched in the rebuttal (but it's good to extend terminal defense).

Weigh as early as you can; I won't look to new weighing in the FF.

I'll only call for evidence if it’s disputed or sketchy/someone explicitly tells me to call for it.

I never did progressive debate so I have a very sparse understanding of how it works; if you read progressive args, please be very clear & try to frame them as traditional arguments. I'll do my best to evaluate them (although I don't prefer to).

other stuff:

Do not argue in cross it doesn't help anyone

Keep your own time please!

down to skip grands

do not come off as overly tryhard and condescending i WILL tank your speaks, debate honestly and cleanly

Don't be rude/sexist/ableist/racist/etc, respect pronouns, and use content warnings. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me (kennethhlin1@gmail.com) if you feel at any point unsafe in round.

Debate is hard - be cool, have fun!

Who am I:

MS CS. I build AI models in industry

7 Years of Debate mainly in public forum.

I am used to national circuit public forum. I won PKD Nationals in college public forum twice.

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

Public Forum

I will do my best to come into the debate with no preconceived notions of what public forum is supposed to look like.

Tech > Truth unless the flow is so damn messy that I am forced to go truth > tech to prevent myself from letting cardinal sins go.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot:

1) Win the flow. I will almost entirely vote off the flow at the end of the debate. If it's not in the FF I won't evaluate it at the end of the day.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponents clean concede an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outway argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Please.. PLEASE extend your arguments from summary to final focus. Public forum is a partner event for a reason. i don't want two different stories from your side of the debate. Give me an argument, extend it through all your speeches and that's how you gain offense from it at the end of the day.

K's/Theory

I am fine with K's but please be aware of the following:

Y'all this isn't policy. It's public forum where you have potentially 4 minutes to detail a K, link your opponents to it, and impacted it out. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate and potentially vote on a K, rather I would caution against running a K just to say you ran a K in public forum.

Theory makes debate a better space. Don't abuse it

Speed

I can keep up with pretty much whatever you throw at me. Signposting is critical but in the rare case I have trouble I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.

Plan's/Counterplans

I will drop you if you run one of these. This is public forum.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will be given with a couple points of consideration:

1) Logic. Anyone can yell cards 100mph at the top of their lungs. Speaker points will be higher for individuals who actually use logic to back up their evidence. Honestly you should be using logic anyways.

2) Signposting and clarity: Organization and well-built arguments are key in PF and.. ya know.. life.

3) Coding jokes. I am a computer scientist and will probably lose it (.5 SP bump for adaptation)

Calling for evidence

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions ask me in round!

Lincoln Douglas:

I have judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas in Idaho; however, I am primarily a national circuit Public Forum Coach. I have will no problem following your on-case argumentation. K's, while I have introductory knowledge about, are not my speciality and please adjust accordingly.

I have no problem with counter plans in LD and I will come into the round with an open mind of how LD is supposed to look.

4 Tips for me:

1. Win the flow by extending your arguments and collapsing on key voters.

2. I could care less if you win the value/c debate unless you tell me why it ties to your impacts in a unique scope that your opponent does not.

3. Coding jokes get a .5 SP bump for adaption. (I am a computer scientist and believe adaptation is important to public speaking. But you won't be penalized for this haha)

4. Have fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to ask!

Policy

I have judged well over 50 policy rounds in Idaho; however, I have never judged national circuit (TOC) policy. What does this mean for your adaption to me?

Add me to the email chain marckade@isu.edu

1. Run whatever you want. I have no problem with K's or any other argument some local circuits believe to be kryptonite. I believe debate is a game that has real world implications. I am tech > truth. See #3 for more info

2. I have ZERO issue with fast paced, spreading of disads, on case, and generic off-case positions such as counterplans. You can go as fast as you want on these as long as you are clear in the tagline.

3. If you decide to run something fancy (K's), you will need to slow down a little bit. I have judged K debate, but it is not my specialty and I am not up to date with the literature. But I believe most K's to be fascinating and I wish I judged them more. The most important thing you can do to help me vote for your K is EXPLAIN the links. Links are everything to me <3

I debated for three years at Barbers Hill mainly in policy, but I also competed in LD for a bit! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me: reaganmason@utexas.edu.

TLDR

I'll vote on almost any argument, so feel free to read what you want-- whether it's frivolous or not-- and I'll evaluate it as long as you provide a warrant and a clear pathway to the ballot.

I default to competing interps and no RVI's, and drop the debater for most shells. I like disclosure.

Interact with and weigh the arguments. If there's anything I "prefer" to see, it's analytics during rebuttals instead of a huge card dump.

Do the work for me. Even if you're reading theory that identifies the inherent unfairness of the AC, engage with the aff in a way that demonstrates your theory argument to be valid. This makes giving you the ballot significantly easier if you are able to prove in-round abuse while not simply escaping substantive debate as a whole.

Framework

Foremost, I'll evaluate the round through the winning FW, ROB, or ROJ as long as it's extended. If the debate isn't framework-oriented, provide impact calculus as another clear weighing mechanism. If your specialty is a highly intense FW debate, then just explain it well and signpost exceptionally well. Bottom line: spend sufficient time fleshing out your framework to me if you want me to evaluate the round under your standard.

Kritiks

In policy, I was into fem on the china topic and ableism on the education topic, but mainly as separate advantages to other big stick impacts. So, if Ks are your thing, be sure to explain the lit thoroughly-- I don't keep up with it. As long as you tell me the warrant clearly, I'll buy your argument :)

I am more persuaded by your K if you outline a link to case during the 1NC and a thorough explanation of the world of the alt. (The more specific, the better.) IE if the aff operates under a capitalist structure, but doesn't actively increase capitalism, then there's definitely a no-link argument to be made as the potential link is reasonably vague.

Please don't try to use the "academic" language from the K to confuse your opponent. If you really are a good debater, explain it in simpler terms and be able to explain it well in your own words.

Don't assume I'll make connections for you. Alts should be clear about what they do. Perm texts should also be explicitly clear and kept consistent throughout the round.

Theory

Before looking at my defaults, have a decent shell. Make sure the opponent has clearly violated your interpretation.

I default to competing interps and no RVI's, and drop the debater for most shells. I don't care how frivolous the shell is; as long as it's impacted out and you're winning on it, I'll vote on T. If you're going to read frivolous T, just do it well.

However, there must be a clear violation. Just explain the link well and I'll buy it.

Don't just respond to theory with your own shell w/o engaging with the OG shell!!

If you think the theory debate may collapse and become a wash, I'd suggest extending substance if you want me to look to the substantive debate when voting.

Non-T Affs

Have a clear ballot story! I don't care if your aff is topical. However, I’ll listen to warranted T shells against kritical affs.

do what you want, essentially. this is your space.

Speed

Don't expect me to flow a one-sentence blippy argument that should have "won you the round." This is where the quality of arguments is crucial, and clarity is key. Slow down for taglines, author names, and particular arguments that you want me to for sure have down. I'll tell you to slow down as many times as needed in order to ensure that my flow is most accurate.

Policy

Policy arguments are great. love them! I find that my favorite rounds are policy-oriented. In regards to perms, make your permutation explicit, and identify net benefits during your speech.

Identify the explicit link to the DA(s).

If you're dropping an argument, explicitly tell me that you don't want me to evaluate it. Also, be sure to respond if there's offense on that argument's flow, or else I'll buy those arguments as independent voters if I'm told to.

PF

Weigh arguments!!!!! Most debaters throw a ton of arguments at judges and do no work. I don't want to intervene, but if you don't do the in-round weighing, I will have to intervene. Don't make me do work for you in the round.

Maybe this is progressive PF??? but a framework would be exceptional. I'll probably inflate your speaks because I'll be impressed.

Generic impact calculus (we outweigh on magnitude, timeframe, probability) should be executed in front of me.

Speaks

*** Speaks will be determined by efficiency, quality of arguments, strategy, and weighing ability. ***

29.5-30: Really good/may win the tournament

29-29.5: Probably will get far/bid

28.5-29: Probably will break

28-28.5: Postive but won't break

27.5-28: Go even

26.5-27.5: Not great

Anything below 26.5 means you did something egregious in round

Tell me if you're in a bubble round, and I'll inflate.

Miscellaneous

Efficiency is key with me as a judge. If you're quick, I'll be more likely to boost speaks. Don't take 20 minutes to prepare a file for the email chain. I'll doc your speaks if this becomes an issue.

I don't want something not said in earlier speeches to suddenly be blown up in the 2AR/NR.

If an argument goes conceded, concise extensions are fine (signpost, what the argument is, its implication to the round.)

However, if the argument was contested, I need to see a clear explanation of the warrant and a longer extension.

I was an LD debater for Strake Jesuit from 2011-15. I primarily judge LD and occasionally PF. I encourage you to ask questions before the round, or email me at johnmcmillanjl@gmail.com.

Feel free to read any arguments in any style you desire. Please be clear, both in your manner of speaking (I have no issue with speed), in weighing, and in articulating the reasons I should vote for you.

I will say ‘clear’ if I can’t understand you, and I believe it’s your obligation to make arguments and structure clear to me. Please emphasize or slow down for authors, tags, etc.

I prefer competing interps for theory but I will entertain RVI arguments. I would prefer to avoid ‘drop the debater’ shells as well, and if your shell is exceptionally stupid I reserve the right to ignore it. Beyond that I’ll try to keep an open mind, but I judge infrequently so I may need more explanation than others.

I expect you to keep track of your own prep time and keep a written record of how much time is left.

If I don’t understand your argument or it’s simply untrue I will not vote on it. Please be respectful to me, your opponent, and the standards of the activity.

For PF: Please avoid paraphrasing whenever possible. I will prefer ethically cut evidence over paraphrased evidence in all circumstances. Clearly SIGNPOST and say the tags and AUTHOR NAMES of your cards before beginning the quotation.

I debated for four years at Carroll Senior High School in Southlake, Texas and am currently a sophomore* at Duke.

Feel free to ask questions before the round

Just some basic preferences:

-I have a pretty high threshold for extensions. It's not enough just to spend 2 seconds on a frontline; you also need to properly extend the actual argument you're trying to access if you're planning on carrying it through to the end of the round.

-Summary and final focus should mirror each other. It's a lot harder to get my vote when your strategy is different from your partner's in the later speeches.

-Second rebuttal should respond to the offense out of the first.

-You can read quickly if you want to, but I can't guarantee that I'll get all of it. I don't think debate should be all that fast anyways.

-In terms of progressive debate (theory, Ks, etc.): Honestly, I had very little experience with technical debate in high school so I don't think I'd be particularly great at evaluating it, but it's ultimately up to you to decide what you want to do to win the round.

-Please don't call me judge. I hate that. Also, I'm not going to shake your hand.

Be nice to each other, and try to have fun. I REALLY don't like when debaters take rounds too seriously to where they become rude. It's not that deep. I promise.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

I debated for four years at Lamar High School in Houston, Texas in PF.

Summary

Normal flow judge.

Debate - General

I believe that debate is more of a game than anything else, thus if an argument is dropped it is true (tech > truth). Speed is fine if I cannot understand you then I will just say clear. If you continue to be unclear than I will just stop flowing and stop saying clear. No matter what speed you are going at you need to signpost in every speech if I do not know where you are on the flow more than likely I will not write it down. On signposting, make sure that you are specific about which case you are on, what part of the case, and the specific part of the argument as well (link etc). I am looking for the easiest way to vote not the most exciting. So if there is a drop or turn that is clean extended your best bet is to go for that argument over the most contested (assuming similar impacts). Also, I believe that counterplans and plans add a lot to debate so feel free to run them, just makes sure that there the inherency or tradeoff evidence is strong. If you run a plan you cannot fiat specific implementation, you have to show that it is at least possible.

The Debate - Later Speeches

Like all judges the arguments that you discuss in final need to be in summary as well. My brightline for extensions, in summary, are extremely low (saying a card name and tag is enough) for me to give you access to that argument in final. That being said if there is a five-second extension for an argument out of summary it should not take up all two minutes of your final focus. Look at my paradigms on weighing below.

On Weighing

I think that weighing is important but it will not win the ballot. I believe that weighing is now used excessively by teams to supplement in round thinking. If you are going to weigh it needs to begin in the rebuttal, summary at the latest. Like any argument, if the weighing is not in summary it cannot be in final focus.

Non-Starters

Disclosure Theory, Identity Politic Ks, and bigoted stuff

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

Background: I did PF for four years in the Texas and National Circuits. Qualified for TFA State three times and Gold TOC three times, clearing at both. I formerly coached for Strake Jesuit in Houston and served as the tournament director for the Strake Jesuit PFRR from 2018-2022. I was heavily influenced by policy debate, so I generally agree with their debate norms.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. I evaluate tech>truth only. I am tabula rasa, meaning you can read any argument as wild as you want and I will vote on it as long as it is warranted and not offensive. I mainly did LARP/traditional debate but also have experience debating theory and Ks, so you can run whatever you want. However, I only vote on arguments I understand, so I am more impressed by PF and policy-esque arguments more so than LD. Content wise, I strongly prefer in-depth substance over random off-case debate. I believe that my role as a judge is to be an educator and a norm-setter. In a nutshell, I take from Andy Stubbs in that I vote for the team with the strongest link into the highest layer of offense in the round.

Disclosure/Chains: Disclosing to the NDCA PF wiki is the only way to get above 29 speaks. Tell me if you disclose. If you are sharing docs or spreading, use Speechdrop, flash drive, or email chain.

Evidence: Cut cards > paraphrased. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if it is contested. For citations, I just need author name and year. Misconstruction of evidence will result in lower speaks, based on how flagrant it is.

Speed: Clarity>Speed. If you are clear, go as fast as you want. Slow down on author names, tags, and analytical arguments in case/rebuttal. Then, since I would be familiarized with your evidence, you can speed up summary/FF. Not the biggest fan of spreading; if you do, send docs. If you do spread, it must be cut card and not paraphrased evidence.

Style: Line by line debate only. Extend by author name and sign-post. Implicate all offense in terms of how it affects the ballot. Sign-post.

Speaker Points: Speaks are based off of in-round strategy only. Everyone starts with a 28 and I'll go from there. 29.0+ for disclosing only.

Misc: Speech times are set. One team is aff and one team is neg. I only vote for one team. I only down one team. No double wins or double losses unless instructed by tab. Speeches are set i.e. first speaker gives case and summary. Fundamental rules are set.

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

CX: I'm okay with open CX meaning your partner can join in to clarify answers. You can also both agree to use the rest of cross as prep time.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal just has to answer turns on case, not defense. Don't read a blipstorm of paraphrased responses or card dump; I either won't be able to flow it or won't feel comfortable voting on it. Not impressed by irrelevant DAs that don't actually engage the aff. Depth>Breadth. I like analytics especially when they implicate cards. You can read overviews, new advantages, add-ons, uniqueness updates, link boosters etc., but they must be based off of case or directly answer your opponent.

Summary: First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but must extend turns. Second summary has to extend defense and answer turns. Turns conceded out of second rebuttal are considered dropped for the round. Most (preferably all) new implications must be made in summary. I am fine with advantage add-ons and link boosters in summary, but I would like it more if these are read in rebuttal if possible.

Final Focus: This is the speech you call out drops and implicate the stuff extended in summary. Second FF should not have too many new weighing/implications. Anything outrageously new in 2FF will not be evaluated. It's subjective, but you'll know if something is too new in 2FF. Just weigh and implicate here.

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 very comfortable and 5 unfamiliar) of how I feel about judging these arguments:

Framework: 1; I like it. Introduce in case.

Kritiks: 3; No high theory. I like topical Ks. K affs and Reps Ks are fine too. I care most about the strength of the alt when it comes to Ks.

Theory: 2; My defaults are CI>Reasonability and no RVIs. Still tell me what I should prefer. I don't like friv theory. I default T>K.

T: 3; I default drop the argument. I default T>K.

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

Plans/CPs: 1; Tell me why the CP is competitive. Solvency advocates help. I don't like multi-planked CPs.

PICs: 3; Same as CPs but you must also provide a net benefit.

PIKs: 5; Not a fan. No experience with this.

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

Misc: I'm not too familiar with arguments like permissibility, skep, presumption etc. so I will try my best to evaluate them, but my understanding and threshold for response are fairly low.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Three main things I evaluate

1) Framework and pre-fiat arguments

2) Evidence Comparison: give me reasons to prefer your evidence especially to set the record straight about something.

3) Impact Calculus

Topicality is something I will vote on

Kritiks must have an alt. it must be clear through Cross X and Speech what the world of the alt looks like.

Strake Jesuit '18, University of Texas at Austin '22

Creator of the PF wiki

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit, Plano West

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email:dwang18@mail.strakejesuit.org

***Just my personal thought: "flow/tech" judges that refuse to vote on theory (esp disclosure) are worse than lay judges. ***

"Flow" judges or just people in general who refuse to vote in disclosure theory or other progressive arguments are the worst judges on the circuit and are carcinogenic to the activity (I said it). It's like saying I won't evaluate x case argument because I don't agree with it personally even if the debate is heavily one-sided in-round. All the arguments against it are just bad.

***Disclosure bad is the worst argument I've ever heard but if you win cause your opponents can't debate I guess I'll buy it***

Disclosure is also a true argument but tech > truth.

-Interp texts must be sent -- this includes CIs as well and is NOT negotiable

SECOND REBUTTAL/SUMMARY OBLIGATIONS -- A SCENARIO ANALYSIS:

The second rebuttal must respond to turns -- this is not negotiable. However, responding to defense in second rebuttal is optional. First summary obviously needs to extends turns if they want to go for it, but let's dive into some scenarios about defense.

Scenario A: The second rebuttal only responds to turns and not defense. This means that the first speaking team does not need to extend defense. Extending defense in the first summary doesn't matter because I will allow the second summary to frontline. You can read new evidence/warrants on their case, but defense extensions do not matter in the first summary. If you do extend defense, they will still be allowed to respond, but you can make clarifications or make new arguments if you desire.

Scenario B: The second rebuttal responds to turns and some pieces of defense. The first summary needs to extend those pieces of defense that were contested or else if the second summary extends frontlines from second rebuttal, I will view that as conceded and final focus will not be allowed to make new responses. The first-speaking team does not need to extend or mention defense that was not touched by the second rebuttal unless they want to make new arguments/read new evidence.

Scenario C: The second rebuttal responds to everything on the flow. The first summary needs to extend their pieces of defense that they want to go for. If they do not and the second summary extends their frontlines, then that is conceded by the first-speaking team.

- All evidence read including evidence in rebuttal or summary must be sent on an email chain. To save time please start the email chain before the round. Format the subject as "Blue Key 2021-- Round # -- AFF Team Code vs NEG Team Code" please.You have 1 minute to send the doc after ending prep -- virtual debate has been around for almost 2 years. It shouldn't take any longer to save, drag the doc into the email, and hit send. Anything longer means that you are stealing prep and you will be sad when you see your speaker points at the end. I want Word documents sent, not the awful thing that exists called Google Docs. It's 2021, please learn how to use Verbatim (it's been around forever)

- Because we are virtual, please try to be more clear. I will not flow along the email-chain but based on what you say. I will only use that to view evidence quality. If you're unclear or going too fast, I won't flow that argument, but I will go back and look if you cut out or there are technical difficulties on either my end or yours.

- You may not and I repeat MAY NOT spread any paraphrased evidence -- literally the worst thing to happen to this event. If you do, everything spread will be treated as analytics.

- Running progressive arguments badly is a good way to make me cry

- I have not prepped this topic at all -- do not assume I know common literature or arguments or acronyms

- VBI theory bad article is objectively false

- Is paraphrasing bad?? Probably-- but read theory if you think it is.

- Clarity of Impact is not a weighing mechanism

-Always True: Impacts such as unemployment or poverty or econ loss are not terminal impacts. Instead, they are internal links into something tangible which then can be a terminal impact.

Speaker point incentives are all under here:

-Disclosing on NDCA PF Wiki (good disclosure) -- +0.3/person + not risking a L on disclosure theory. Tell me if you disclose because I'm not checking every round. Must be at least 30 minutes before each round.

-Winning on disclosure theory -- very good speaks if you do it well

TKO: Technical Knockout.If you at any point in the debate believe that you have won the debate without a reasonable doubt i.e. a conceded theory shell, total domination on substance, zero extension from the other team, or a double turn, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team basically has no plausible routes to the ballot, I will give both speakers on the winning team aW-30 and the other team whatever they deserved. However, if I see some plausible ways for them to win that they can take (absent some hail mary whack route that they probably won't take) I will give you-1.5-3.5 pointsfrom whatever you deserved at that moment in the round. This is depending on how bad your judgement was/how close you were to being right. If you call it when getting destroyed, that's probably -3.5 points. Yes, this is somewhat subjective but really rewarding and fun and a great way to get high speaker points from me. If you call it after second FF, you're getting no higher than 26 speaks since the round is already over and you're a goon.

Generics:

- I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, won a few bid tournaments, qualified to TFA state 3 years and ended in semi-finals my senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year going 6-1 in prelims

- Please be pre-flowed before the round and flip before the round so that I don’t waste my time and it’s better for debate to know what side you’re debating before.

-Evidence must have the author’s last name (or institution if last name not available) and last 2 digits of the year i.e. “Wang 18.” If you don’t have this, then I do not consider it valid evidence under NSDA rules and debate in general.This means in rebuttal you need to cite the author’s year of publication and at least the author’s last name or institution if last name is not available.

-Evidence matters a lot to me.You don’t need evidence to make an argumentbut that argument is going to have a lot less weight especially when going against carded evidence.The “this is logical” argument doesn’t really fly with me especially on topics that are evidence heavy i.e. domestic or foreign policy. Do prep. I like rewarding teams that put hours of work into developing their case and building frontlines to every argument imaginable. I’d rather some decent warranted evidence than good, logical analytics. This means your rebuttals should be evidence-heavy and your cases should be evidence heavy as well. Frontlines should be a solid mixture of good evidence and good analytics.

-Few pieces of good evidence> lots of bad evidence. Smart analytics > blippy, garbage evidence. Decent evidence > most analytics.

-All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument.

TLDR for my Paradigm:

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism good.Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me that you're not good at debate.Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I probably lean a little more truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level but you still need to win the flow since I am overall tech > truth. (Read Below)

On disclosure theory: Winning AT: Ask Me or AT: I'll Email it is incredibly easy in front of me. There's probably a norm-setting argument that you can win incredibly easily if they refuse to disclose on wiki but say they'll email you, etc.

If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.Basically, I will still gladly buy disclosure theory even if an offer to disclose to you privately has been made before the round.

I'm a fan of the arg that teams that only selectively disclose when they're threatened with disclosure theory should be punished still. If they only disclose once or specifically to you, you can still read disclosure if you read the right interp.

If they say their coach will kick them off, you can still read it if you feel like it. There’s arguments against that argument (like a lot).

B.Conceded arguments are 100% true.There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Make sure to implicate your argument.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important.At the end of the round I may ask you to compile a doc of all relevant cards and send them.Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. It's 2020 and it's not that hard.You should disclose. Read below. There are some massive speaker point incentives to disclose.Evidence ethics is also the only time I will intervene. If you make evidence up, that's a trip to tabroom. Power-tagging severely (adding countries in, butchering stats) is probably a L with low-speaks.

D.Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for.The 2nd rebuttalmustrespond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.I do not require the first summary to extend defense if the second rebuttal did not address it but the 2nd summary needs to extend summary for it to be in final focus.If the 2nd rebuttal pulls a James Chen strategy, then 1st summary needs to frontline their responses and extend defense on case.

Please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred.

E.Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine.NSDA rules for these arguments are not a valid response in itself, but you can make it a standard. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there isn't real abuse. Friv theory is great and theory education is good.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are just not arguments. Just because you have a card doesn't mean there's a warrant as well.

G. If both debaters agree, I will allow you to use whatever is left in CX as prep time or the entirety of CX as prep instead of having to ask questions.THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS GRAND CX. You can't skip that lol for obvious reasons as Grand CX would cease to exist basically.

H. Blippy extensions are 100% if the argument is conceded. If they concede an entire contention for example, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only respond to the link or the impacts, just spend more time on that and quickly extend the conceded portions. Just make sure to do implications and weighing with the conceded args.

I. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

J.2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in either summary, GG. You've conceded a weighing argument and you better pray that you're winning some super strong link or impact defense on that argument to where it's zero-risk.

K.If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker pointbecause calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them.

L. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep after you stop the timer and say that you are done with prep. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. However, to encourage good evidence norms i.e. keeping your evidence organized and being able to access the evidence quickly,I will allow teams to prep while evidence exchanges are happening.Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks i.e. calling for 6 cards in one go when you clearly don't need to.

M. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it.

Theory:

-I love progressive arguments andDO NOTbelieve that they are ruining this activity. If anything, I think there raising the rigor of this game. As I state below somewhere, I love theory and read them on anything. You can read it as a way to win. Just don't be a massive prick about it if you read it as a way to win against novices. If you win and be courteous about it, I will give you what you deserve but if you're a prick, I'll deduct speaks but it won't affect my decision.

-I am extremely receptive to theory. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so if you do so graciously.

-I probably prefer shell format for theory since unlike policy, PF doesn't have the speech times to fully develop paragraph theory args so this usually causes a skew and leads to the actual theory debate happening in the final 20% of the round.

-Other than that, I will buy theory on almost anything i.e. condo bad, PICs bad, must read advocacy text, but I am also open to listening to the opposite side. You also need to make the arguments for voter weighing i.e. fairness and education.

-Make sure you do strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's going to be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded, but may be useful to talk about them in an overview to frame the round.

-I believe that theory is aquestion of competing interpretationsmeaning that in-round abuse doesn’t matter but instead is a question of what norm you are promoting. However, this is just my belief but I can be persuaded by in-round abuse, etc.

- If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-Iwill notdefault that fairness and education are voters or the implication of theory. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs are my standard defaults. These are not hard defaults by any means and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments.For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess it also sucks to be you. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a standard shell format or policy-style. If you want to read T, please again read it as a shell format if you don't know how to read it policy-style and make sure to include a TVA.In PF I probably highly prefer shell format since there aren't as many speeches to develop the shell and blippy policy-style leads to the debate happening at the end of the round basically.You need standards/net benefits.Answer why is being non-T bad?Is there some ground, limits arg that you can make? Hell yes, there is. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

-Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics.

TLDR: If you make topicality arguments against affirmatives without warranting why being non-T or questionably non-T is bad, I probably won't evaluate it. Also, if you read T, you need a definition and interp.

-RVIs:

-I am completely open to this debate. I believe that you could get a RVI or that you don't get a RVI. It all depends on how the debating goes.

-For teams responding to theory in the first summary: Proving a RVI here should be incredibly easy. Think please. This means that teams reading theory in 2nd rebuttal should be sure as hell that it's necessary and that they can debate the RVI layer well.

-I default to no RVI so if you want a RVI make sure you read it.

-If you read a shell, make sure you include the RVI debate in the paradigm issues section. Otherwise, you're going to be making RVI args kind of late into the debate and depending on how late they come up for the first time, it might be too late so it's better to be safe than sorry.

K's:

-I am not really well-read in critical literature so please refrain from running extremely complex Kritiks in front of me. Also, please actually understand your kritiks instead of pulling them from a random backfile that you found on the internet.

-I understand the basic stuff (security, colonialism, Foucault, cap, de-dev etc.). If you read a K, I high prefer a link specific to the AC. I don't want K's critiquing the resolution in general that you can read every single round. Those debates are stale and boring.

-K AFFs are also cool by me but they need to do something. Otherwise, I'm just gonna vote neg on presumption and I think we can all finish the round early. I wrote multiple K-AFFs throughout my career but just usually never broke them. If you want to read a K AFF in front of me, that's cool.

-K's that I Love: Cap and De-Dev. If you can run either one of these well and win, your speaks are gonna be good. Cap is probably good in real-life, but this is debate and I read cap occasionally and cut a bunch of cards for cap Ks so I understand both Cap and De-Dev pretty well. For De-Dev make sure you have a uniqueness/brink card.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (duh)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

I debated in LD for Cypress Woods in Houston, Texas. I debated for 3 years up until the beginning of my senior year. I did only framework (phil) debate (Kant, Hobbes, Spinoza, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, etc). I got one bid at Grapevine my junior year (not sure how much I really deserved it).

Tech > truth. Please weigh and do evidence comparison if you don't want me to intervene in debates.

I enjoy judging FW vs FW rounds the most but don't let that factor in too much. I do know of most common Ks (never ran any of them though and I don't have the deepest understanding of any of them) and I enjoy seeing them more than LARP or Theory. However, I won't vote on anything I don't understand.

I default comparative worlds, competing interps, drop the argument, and no RVIs.

Note: On a JV level I can probably evaluate most things, but when it starts getting too technical I will have a hard time.