Yo. I graduated from Plano West '21 (CK) after debating for 4 years.

- Fully warrant your arguments the first time you read them. Don't make new warrants/implications after.

- Defense is sticky in summary if it wasn't responded to.

- Weigh early

- Extensions should fully reexplain the argument.

- Be quick when calling for evidence please.

- Speed is aight if both sides are cool with it but email chain me at (michaelc75025@gmail.com) if you want to spread.

- I debated a decent amount of theory rounds so I'm fairly comfortable there but for other forms of progressive argumentation I'll do my best to follow; explain things well.

- No exclusionary language or actions.

Updated for Septober 2020

small topic knowledge

I debated for Plano West HL. he/him

General:

If you're reading material that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger or content warning (preferably this is done anonymously thru a Google form or smth). If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, you will be dropped.

Tech > truth. If you are not paraphrasing and are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.2 This also applies if you've disclosed on NDCA or CircuitDebater. Good warranting, weighing, and extensions will make me want to vote for you. I care more about how you articulate your warrants than the specifics of your evidence. Exception is if you're misrepresenting. If you are conceding de-links or non-uniques to kick out of turns, they must be made in the speech after the original response was made. Please preflow before the round. Keep track of your own and each others' time, and please don't steal prep. ehuang02 [at] gmail.com for any other questions, or message me on Facebook. I'm sorry if I make a bad decision. I'll try not to. also available for coaching so hmu

Important stuff:

1. Any offense that you want me to evaluate needs to be in summary and final focus and extended properly. Make sure every part of the arg is extended. If you are missing links, warrants, or an impact, I will probably not vote on it. This goes for turns also. If you extend a turn without explicitly implicating what the impact is, I won't vote for it. You also ought to re-extend the link/impact that you are turning if your opponents aren't extending it also. Frontlines are not extensions.

2. With summary being 3 minutes, defense you're going for needs to be in every speech.

3. Second rebuttal must answer turns from first rebuttal. You might want to also frontline defense on an argument that you want to go for, but I won't require it. If you choose to read independent offense, my threshold for extensions on that argument will be higher.

4. The earlier you begin weighing, the more likely it is that I vote for you. Weighing must be comparative and warranted. Consistency in weighing mechanisms that your partner has already introduced is a good idea. I won't evaluate weighing in second FF unless it is the only weighing in the round. Meta weigh as necessary. If I am presented two competing weighing mechanisms without any meta weighing, I will probably intervene on the link level and vote for the team with better warranting.

5. Please don't spread. If you want to go a little fast, it's fine. If I'm unable to understand you, I'll probably set my pen down or clear you. If you are going to spread, please send a speech doc.

6. Organization in a speech is important. Please signpost. Slowing down on author names will also help me out.

7. If something important comes in crossfire, it has to be in a speech for me to evaluate it. Crossfire is binding.

8. Debate how you like, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. I personally prefer a line by line summary. If both teams agree and want me to judge a different way (e.g. a lay judge), I can go for it.

9. I'll try to intervene as little as possible. If defense is read against an argument, implicated, and conceded, I will flow it through even if it's not responsive. However, my threshold for frontlining unresponsive args will be low. If you tell me it isn't responsive, I won't evaluate it. I will intervene on unwarranted arguments. If an argument is introduced without a warrant, and the warrant isn't read until a later speech, I am fairly unlikely to evaluate it. If it's conceded, I'll try not to evaluate it unless it's the only offense in the round. I may also default if there is no clear offense. I will default team that lost the coin flip if you tell me to, but otherwise I'll default first speaking team.

10. If both teams are ok with it, I will disclose speaks/results at the end of the round. If you're in the bubble round (and you tell me), you'll get high speaks.

11. Make sure your evidence says what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it, I will. If your evidence is misrepresented and significant in the round, I may drop you.

Progressive stuff:

1. I'm a bit comfortable with theory. You might want to ask me before the round if I'll be receptive to a certain shell. Extend all parts of the shell the same way you would extend a traditional arg.

2. Please don't run theory on novices.

3. I default no RVI/competing interps.

4. I'm not as comfortable with Ks, CPs or other progressive args. If you want to run these, you can, but you might need to work a little harder explaining it to me.

I enjoyed debating in high school. Try to have fun with it, and if there's anything I can do to help you enjoy it more, let me know. If there are still any questions, please ask me before the round begins. You can feel free to ask me about my decision.

Competed in pf all 4 years of high school for Jasper/Plano West

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

[[ ]] I was told my old paradigm was too long, so I've shortened it considerably. I still agree with everything that was there broadly, and you can read the archived version here.

.

[[ ]] About Me

• I debated in HS and won some stuff, graduating in 2021. I also had a brief stint in NDT/CEDA policy and won nothing. I haven't competed since early 2022.
• Disinterested in judging vacuous non-arguments and listening to kids be jerks to each other. Be nice. Violence in front of me is an L0 and a talk with your coach. The target of this violence decides what happens with the debate. Yes, this includes misgendering.
• MUCH WORSE FOR E-DEBATE. It's too draining and I zone out a lot. Pref me online at your own risk.
• I want to be on the email chain, and I want you to send docs in Word doc format: dylanj724@yahoo.com
• Yes speed, if you have to ask though you're likely unclear and I urge you to correct it.
• Yes, clash. No to arguments that are specifically designed to avoid engagement

.

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

• tl;dr is that I think every decision is interventionist to some degree, but I try to be as predictable and open about my preferences as possible.
• yes, policy; counterplans, disads, etc. are fine. Zero risk is probably a thing. I think it's more interventionist to vote on unwarranted arguments unjustified by the evidence than to read evidence after the debate without being prompted. My BS detector is good and if you're lying about evidence, I'll probably know.
• yes kritiks, but I lean more toward policy these days. these next two sentences might seem paradoxical, but I assure you they are not. I am deeply interested in poststructuralist positions and think I will be the best for you if this is your thing. you should defend something material and do something. preference for speeches that contain the alternative and do something material instead of heavy framework dumps with "reject the aff." To clarify, framework and a link is a fine 2nr but the important part is a link. If I don't know what the aff is doing that is actively bad I cannot vote it down even under your framework interp.
• yes planless/creatively topical/critical affs, but again I lean more toward policy these days. justify why reading your aff in a space where it must be negated and debated against is good, not just why it's good in a vacuum. talking about the resolution is a must - you should not be recycling backfiles from a different topic and saying nothing about the resolution. Talk about the entire resolution and don't abstract from words or modifiers. if I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. I'm a big sucker for presumption.
• yes T-FWK. fine for both fairness and clash, although if you're going for fairness as an internal link, you're probably better set going for clash as an impact itself. Talk about the aff, don't just debate past it.

.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

• Phil: sometimes. I understand these arguments theoretically considering it's what I'm studying and I know what people like Kant, Levinas, Spinoza, and Hegel say. I don't understand the debate application of these folks. Be clear and overexplain.
• Tricks: strike me.

.

If you have questions email me, although the archived version of my paradigm at the top will likely answer them. Good luck!

Hi, I'm Rohan!

Debate is a game; tech > truth. Frontline in 2nd Rebuttal. Warrant your arguments. Weighing wins rounds.

I appreciate kindness, humor, and good strategy. Try to have fun :)

1. Warrant arguments (explain them well)

2. Weigh

3. Don't spread

Hey! I'm your judge.

Debated for Plano West. I competed a good amount on the national circuit and did fairly well. Ended up qualifying to the TOC my senior year in PF. I also have a bit of LD experience. Currently a junior computer science major at Texas A&M University.

Key Points:

1] HERE IS HOW I EVALUATE EVERY SINGLE ROUND:

Which impact/layer is the most important in the round?

Who is winning offense under it?

If you are winning offense under the most important layer whether that is on ur case or not. You have just won the round.

2] I’m not a perfect judge but I like to think of myself as flow, tab, Tech > Truth.

3] Run anything you want (except death or oppression good, 30 speaker points theory, burden of rejoinder is bad, following speech times bad) as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. The more nuanced ur args are, the more warranting I'd like to hear.

4] pls weigh. I'm begging you.

5] If you extend something it must have a warrant.

6] Speed is fine but if you’re gonna go policy fast pls send a speech doc so I can get all ur args down. Err on the side of going as slow as you can while spreading AND ENUNCIATE bc there is a greater chance I will miss something the faster you talk. I'll yell "clear" 3x before I just stop flowing.

7] Judge grilling and post rounding for educational purposes are good. Just know that I will not change my ballot after the round is over and if your questions turn into hateful bashing towards me or your opponents, I will happily tank your speaks.

8] Every offensive argument should be underneath some sort of framing/weighing mechanism I can vote off of (this is primarily for LD). If you just read an apriori that says affirm means to agree and since you agree you win. That's not good enough but I will 110% vote on those arguments if they are supplemented by some sort of weighing or framing argument. To clarify: Why should definitional burdens be the top layer of the debate? If you can answer that question, run whatever you like. As long as you explicitly tell me why the apriori is actually an apriori and comes before everything else.

9] Have fun.

For PF: defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is responded to. But needs to extend turns. Second rebuttal should frontline.

For LD: Run whatever you want. However, if you run anything philosophically oriented, please warrant your arguments heavily. I should be able to tell the other team with confidence what I am voting for.

Defaults (you can change ANY of these): presumption and permissibility negate. No RVIs and eval with competing interps on Theory. The default framework is a cost-benefit analysis (For PF).

hello friends! I debated for 4 years at Plano West.

chain: adikumar0306@gmail.com

If you have any questions that weren't answered here, I'll be happy to clear them up before round.

1. the warranting of an argument must happen completely the first time you read the response and should ideally be implicated out fully (new warrants/implications from a new warrant will be disregarded, should have theory read against them, and will tank your speaks)

2. I'm a big fan of early weighing in PF. With that being said, if you're just gonna restate your impact and throw out a buzzword, you might as well not weigh at all (make your weighing comparative). I also don't evaluate new weighing in second final unless there is no weighing done in the round prior to that.

3. If you want to dump turns against your opponents, go for it (just make sure the responses are actually responsive because if either a. the response isn't originally responsive and gets turned into something responsive or b. the response gets extended as a blip until final focus, I will intervene to drop the response even if your opponents dropped it completely). I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to reading lots of responses against an argument, but a response must consist of a claim, a warrant, and an implication to how it affects the original argument. offensive overviews in rebuttal are kinda abusive imo, so while ill evaluate it like any other DA/Advantage in the round, I have a lower threshold for responses against the argument and encourage people to read theory against it.

4. With the new three minute summaries, the extension of an argument consists of a re-explanation of the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact (failure to extend any one of these in summary or final focus drops the argument from my flow). For specific card extensions, idrc if you extend the card name, but it would be preferred.

5. I've debated my fair share of theory rounds, so I think I feel comfortable evaluating a basic theory debate. Additionally, I have a low threshold for responses against "no RVIs" and friv theory. With that being said, while I will do my best to understand non-topical K positions, high theory, tricks, and counter-plans, I can't promise that you'll like my decision at the end of the round.

6. I debated at a fairly fast pace throughout high school, so speed is fine. if you're gonna be spreading, please use an email-chain. If you don't send a speech doc and you're going too fast for me, I will clear you once and proceed to put my pen down and stop flowing.

8. at a base level, i really enjoyed my time in the debate space. I know I'm one of the lucky ones who was surrounded by great friends and coaches that genuinely cared. My number one goal is always to make that space more accessible to others. For that reason, any exclusionary language or action will result in a loss and the lowest possible speaks tab will let me give you.

good luck!

I debated for Plano West. I did alright.

For online tourneys, send speech docs to dliang7162@gmail.com

General

I will only evaluate arguments at the end of the round if they are extended with warrants in both of the last 2 speeches. Weighing must be comparative, not just a string of jargon. If you're conceding de-links to kick out of turns, it must be done in the speech directly after the responses are read. You can probably go decently fast in front of me, but if you paraphrase, I'm of the opinion that you don't need to go that fast. Please no new in the 2. Everyone in the round will be upset.

If you explain an argument poorly the first time it's read or its warrant changes between speeches, it has a very low probability of being a voting issue.

Evidence

I won't call for cards after round unless I am explicitly told to do so or I feel it is misconstrued. You should be able to explain why evidence matters during the round. In general, I won't accept "some dude made this assertion so it must be true, prefer our card over their analytics". A warranted analytic is better than an unwarranted claim from some card. Use logic to back up all args.

Progressive Stuff

I don't have too much familiarity with K's but I'll do my best to evaluate them if you do read them. Theory is fine as long as you feel there is actual abuse going on. Don't read these arguments if your opponents clearly don't know how to engage with them unless you're ok with your speaker points getting tanked.

Misc

If you win by speaking considerably slower than your opponents, I will give you +0.5 speaker points. This is to reward teams with good word economy. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round.

I'm lay.

Jk

Did PF for 4 years, but my true love is BQ 

Tech >>> truth 

Defense is sticky if not frontlined, but I prefer extensions 

Please use weigh properly and respond to your opp's weighing so I don't have to intervene 

Preflow before round 

I'm open to progressive arguments, but make it accessible (I was a traditional debater; never ran those args) 

Hey there! I debated PF all four years in HS on the texas and national circuit, graduated from Plano West '21. Put me on the email chain: alynie@wharton.upenn.edu

• An extension is a (brief) explanation of what the argument is, what the link from the resolution is, and what the impact is. You must do all three for me in both summary + ff to evaluate this argument at the end of the round. You don't have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Speaking of offense, here's how I vote: After the rounds over, I look for remaining, withstanding offense for both sides (this means any offense extended in both summary & final focus with no terminal defense on it). Offense needs to be compatible (ie. i don't buy two arguments simultaneously if they fundamentally contradict; I'll resolve it otherwise). If both sides have offense, I'll then vote based on whatever weighing/framing you have done; otherwise, if there is no comparative weighing, I'll make my own judgment. If neither side has offense, I'll vote on the closest thing to offense I can find. I'm pretty receptive to whatever weird strategy in the back half you go for (dropping case for turns, etc)!
• I'll disclose if I can. You can ask for feedback, and post-rounding is totally fine. I think it's my responsibility to articulate an RFD everyone understands, and I'll drop you with 30s if you can reasonably convince me I was wrong (ofc, given it's a productive discussion).
• I care about making the round a positive experience for everyone! Just don't be a terrible person and you should be okay in this regard.

Hey! I'm Alex and I debate for Plano West Senior High School and have experience in LD and PF.

Add me to the email chain: alex.parachini@outlook.com

I'm a tab judge so you can read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it, but nothing racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

Please provide warrants for you arguments and explain to me why your arguments are true

Pleaseeeeee weigh your arguments or tell me which layer to evaluate first. I don't want to have to do the work for you and evaluate arguments on my own. I default to util.

For online debate:

I prefer if you do an email chain, and if you initiate it, I'll bump speaks +.5

For Novice LD:

Please weigh your arguments

Also, I haven't done LD this year, so I don't know the topic at all, so don't assume I do :)

For Novice CX:

Pls add me on the email chain

Don't assume that I know the topic, because I don't. Don't use abbreviations that are not common knowledge.

Updated for Plano West 2021

I debated for Cypress Bay and Plano West. I am a second year student at Florida State University.

Email: noahromo17@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth. Now don't go crazy and not read the rest of this because you won't win if you just spread through a bunch of dumb arguments. The way to my ballot is still 100% through warranting your arguments well and weighing. Also, if you are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.5.

Please be conscious of your opponents and audience in the room. If you're reading anything that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger warning or content warning (the best way to do this would be anonymously through a google form or smth).

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, or transphobic, you will be dropped.

Preflow before round, keep track of your time and your opponent's time and don't steal each other's prep.

Don't assume I know the topic well.

You can email me or message me on Facebook with any questions as well and hmu if you need a coach!

Important Stuff:

1. This is first because it is the most important part of debate. WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH. Weighing should be comparative and warranted just like any other argument (Ex: Don't just tell me that your argument should win because your impact has a higher magnitude, tell me why having a higher magnitude makes your argument more important). If I am conflicted between different weighing mechanisms, meta weigh, or else I may default to one mechanism over another and you may not like my decision. I generally enjoy consistency between you and your partner's weighing mechanisms. Also weighing links and warrants is just as important as impact calc. If you don't get it by now, WEIGH because debate is all about comparing your arguments.

2. Speak fast if you want, I know I was a generally fast debater, but I will doc your speaker points if you aren't clear. Speaking slower can also be just as strategic and powerful, especially when it comes to emphasizing certain arguments on my flow. And if you're going to truly spread then I can flow it, but I will drop your speaks if you don't send a speech doc.

3. Any offense you want me to evaluate needs to be extended properly and in both Summary and Final Focus.

4. Whether it's paraphrasing or cut cards, please make sure your evidence is saying what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it and it doesn't say that, it may cost you in a tight round. If your evidence is misrepresented and it's important I may drop you. Also, read dates please.

5. Defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is frontlined in second rebuttal (Now keep in mind that with a 3-minute summary I think important defense should be extended). Note: Turns are offense so they NEED TO be extended in first summary if you want them in final, and they should be responded to in first rebuttal.

6. Turns from first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal, or else they are not frontlined.

7. Organization is key when it comes to giving a cohesive speech. Make sure your speeches are structured and signpost as you go. A roadmap always helps, or just let me know where you're starting.

8. No, I won't evaluate anything that was said in crossfire unless I hear you being excessively rude, belittling, or hateful to your opponents in any way. If you want me to evaluate it, it's gotta be in a speech.

9. If both teams are ok with it I will disclose at the end of the round. Tell me if it's a bubble round and I'll give you both high speaks :)

10. If you are going for turns, remember to extend the impacts and weigh them. And if you extend a link turn, you should extend your opponent's impact if they drop it.

11. A frontline is not a case extension. Extending your link chain and impact is a case extension. You must both extend and frontline if your argument is responded to.

12. I love framing debates, I think they are some of the most educational and interesting debates I have had so don't be afraid to have them. But if you are reading a framing argument, please try to read it in case and not past first rebuttal. Reading a long framing argument, in second rebuttal, that is very critical to the way the round is going to collapse is pretty abusive and it's going to annoy me.

More Progressive Stuff:

1. I liked to read lots of framing arguments, sometimes read shells, and a K every now and then. I also competed in Policy debate sometimes (not saying I was that good though lol). So, I think progressive debate is cool and has a large potential to increase the educational value of public forum, but only if orchestrated correctly. Which means don't read progressive arguments against novices or inexperienced opponents. If you truly believe you are 'so much better' than the team you are facing, let's see you win the round on my flow by weighing and warranting your arguments well because that is how to set a good example for new debaters. I will tank your speaks or possibly drop you if you use any of these arguments to exclude your opponents.

2. I think theory is cool and you should stick to shells that target specific in-round abuses. It's a good idea to ask me before round if I will be receptive to a specific shell. I default to no RVIs/competing interps.

3. So I will evaluate whatever argument you put in front of me as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. But just know that I am not as comfortable with Ks, tricks, and other more nuanced progressive arguments. You can run them and I will try my best to evaluate them, but you should probably go a bit slower when reading them.

4. I will evaluate just about any argument except for a couple of specific ones: Oppression good, death good, and 30 speaker points theory. If you want to know why I believe any of these arguments are bad I am happy to start a dialogue with you. If there are any other specific shells or arguments you wonder if I will be receptive to or not, do not hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

Speaks:

I will generally give out 27-29.

Debaters get too angry nowadays. If you debate well and are lighthearted/funny you will get high speaks. Rounds are always most educational when they not only clash, but everyone is having a good time!

I'll give you a 30 if you really impress me or make a funny reference to a good rapper (Whatever rapper you reference though has to have BARS, I'm talking five fingers of death bars).

Jokes and funny debates are my favorite. I personally thought debate was the most fun part of high school because it's like this awesome game of four-dimensional chess. So don't let frustrations get to you because enjoying your rounds is by far most important.

I'll intervene as little as possible because I want you to decide my ballot for me.

Ask me before round if you have any specific questions.

What's up I did PF for four years from plano west '21 (IS)

shahrukhshowkath@gmail.com

You can ask me questions before the round if you have any after reading this

Tech> truth but if its something weird, you will have to work harder to get my ballot

I'm probably not familiar with any of the topics so explain unusual terminology

I'm ok with speed for the most part but send speech doc if spreading. If it is too fast/can't understand you, I'm just not gonna flow it.

Theory is ok but I'm not completely familiar with it. For any progressive argument, it's best if the argument is fleshed out to me simplistically and I'll do my best to follow

Either line by line/big picture summary is ok

Second rebuttal should reply to first

When extending, fully extend the argument

if comparing evidence, please tell me in round or else I have to do it myself and you can guess how that's gonna go

Warrant. don't make new warrants later

Weigh.

Collapse.

Signpost.

be quick when calling for evidence pleasee4eeeeeeeee

no exclusionary actions or language.

debate well.

Lmao pls read smth fun and non substantive

Fr ill buy anything, but it has to be warranted and weighed well. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline turns but term defense can be responded to in summ. Defense is sticky but new implications need to be made in summary for it to be considered in final. Weighing is vital. Extend card by card esp in summary and extend all warrants and impacts on turns.

u gotta explain shit well

Dont go too fast, im tech but im not that great with spreading :)

I dont have presumption preference pls give me reasons for presuming one side or the other in round

funnier/more entertaining the round = more speaks

on theory:

all parts of the shell need to be extended

you can ask me questions before the round if you have any after reading this

tech> truth but if its something weird, you may have to work harder for it to get my ballot

I'm probably not familiar with any of the topics so explain unusual terminology

I'm ok with speed for the most part but send speech doc if spreading. if it is too fast/can't understand you, I'm just not gonna flow it.

Theory is ok but I'm not completely familiar with it. For any progressive argument, It's best if the argument is fleshed out to me simplistically and I'll do my best to follow

either line by line/big picture summary is ok

second rebuttal should reply to first

defense is sticky in summary

when extending, fully extend the argument

if comparing evidence, please tell me in round or else i have to do it myself and you might be sad

warrant. don't make new warrants later

weigh.

collapse.

signpost.

be quick when calling for evidence pleaseeeeeeeeeee

no exclusionary actions or language.

debate well.

Do not spread. I will not tolerate your nonsense. Best of luck, say the right words.

Don't be mean. Act like I'm a parent judge.

Email Chain-- shishirwaghray@gmail.com

About Me: [Plano West '20]

Hello! I competed for Plano West for 4 years, mainly in LD on the TFA and national circuits. I also briefly did policy towards the latter half of my debate career. I strive to be as tabula rasa as possible in my judging philosophy. Below is my paradigm. Please ask me questions as you see fit.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Quick Prefs:

Policy (Plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc.) - 1

T & Theory - 1 or 2

K/K Affs - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4/Strike

*Note: I am familiar with all of these arguments-- this scale simply reflects my personal preferences. Feel free to run what you want...I'll keep up. Ideally I would be a 1 for all of these, but it's merely a personal preference.

____________________________________________________________________________________

**LD/CX Paradigm**

General Stuff-

-Tech > Truth: good strategy, great engagement with the flow, extension of warrants/offense, and line-by-lining go a long way towards making me vote for you.

-Weighing: Do it well and do it frequently. Have weighing mechanisms that make sense within the context of the round. Generally, this is what separates some of the really good debates observed throughout my career vs the really poor ones. Good evaluative mechanisms are also appreciated.

-Warrants: Be sure to provide clear and concise warrants as to why something is true and why I should be voting off of it. Extend warrants through all speeches and towards the back-half of the round.

-Signposting: it's really important that you say where you are on the flow throughout the round.

-Strategic Collapsing: Again, quality over quantity of arguments here. Rather than trying to win off every single argument, pick the few that are the most strategic in round and go for those. Additionally, tell me why those are the most important and why I should vote off of them.

-Framework: Whether this is an ROB, traditional V/C, or something else, good framework debate is something I enjoy.

-I generally tend to vote off of substantive offense...this is the best way to get to my ballot

Speed:

Spreading is generally fine with me, but make sure that if you're going to spread, that it is clear. I'll say "clear" once before I start docking speaker points. You might want to slow down a little on analytics, taglines, theory interps, and plan texts just to make sure I don't miss anything.

Framing:

-Doesn't really matter what this will be, whether it is a value/criterion, ROB, or something else. It should be well explained and extended in the 1AR/2NR. Additionally, your weighing mechanisms should be clearly delineated and filtered through the lens of a framework if you're running a stock case, critical position, or ideally most LARP positions.

Post-Round: I will end up disclosing my decision at the end of the round, and am open to any questions/concerns about the RFD. Contrary to what other judges think, I believe that post-rounding is good as it keeps judges accountable and makes them justify the decision.

Case Structures-

*In general, run whatever you want--I'll vote on most things as long as the debate is done well*

Policy/LARP: I really like this debate style, and it is what I have read upwards of 80% of the time throughout my own debate career. With that being said, there are a couple pointers. Try to be creative here as there is so much topic ground for you to cover. I'd like to see good comparison of evidence/internal warrants of cards in rounds as well as good weighing. These make for interesting debates.

- Creative and nuanced econ, politics, or geopolitical scenarios will be rewarded with good speaks. Nuanced means something other than the same extinction scenario or surface level political analysis.

1.) Plans: Must have a clear representation of what the world looks like and good solvency mechanisms. Absent explicit framing, I default to a basic util/policymaking FW. Having good warrants and weighing mechanisms are crucial here.

2.) CP/PIC: I prefer case specific CPs over generic ones. Must include solvency evidence and net benefits. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory. I won't "judge kick" the CP for you.

• I enjoy some of the more arcane CPs such as Agent, Conditions, Process, Delay, Consult, and Conditions, but be prepared to win the theory debate on these.

• CPs with just the text and no evidence underneath are a waste of time. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory, and >3 condo is probably abusive.

• Perms are a test of competition. I'd rather see one well warranted perm than 8 blippy perms.

3.) DA: Uniqueness evidence, good link chain, and tangible impacts are crucial to a good DA. 1 card DAs, Bad link chains or outlandish impacts are unlikely to get my ballot.

• Politics DAs are probably my favorite, given that they have good links, tangible impacts, and substantive/nuanced knowledge of the politics. This does not mean reading some generic garbage from openev, but rather having an understanding of the political process. I keep up with politics quite a bit, and can tell if your link chains/impacts are nonsensical.

Kritiks: While I primarily read policy style arguments, I've admittedly had decent experience with Ks as well. I'm decently familiar with most of the commonly read authors including Baudrillard, Wilderson, Warren, Deleuze & Guattari,, Tuck & Yang, etc.

-High Theory & PoMo > IDPol > Generics (e.g. Cap, Security, etc.)

-Things I HATE: Backfile K Debate, Vague/generic links to the aff, unclear explanation of what the alt looks like, unclear explanation of the lit ("buzzword, buzzword, buzzword..." won't cut it!) overly long/scripted overviews, unwarranted independent voters.

-Things I want to see: Clear Link, Specific/tangible explanation of Alt, ROB provided as an overarching portion of the K. I like seeing good K debates with in-depth knowledge of the literature at hand.

-I like seeing good K debates. I think understanding your critical position and clearly being able to articulate it separates good debaters from unskilled hacks.

-Do most of the work on the line-by-line instead of having really long and scripted overview.

-I enjoy good methods debates in response to most critical positions.

-I'll evaluate K Tricks such as root cause, can't weigh case, V2L, floating PIKs (must be set up in the neg block or the 1NC for LD), etc.

T/Theory:

Defaults: Competing Interps/No RVI/Education > Fairness/T > Theory/Meta Theory > Theory.

-In general, there needs to be a clear procedural abuse for me to vote off theory. Otherwise, I'll end up making theory a wash and voting off substance. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory as I think it detracts from more substantive debates, and my threshold for responses on a friv shell is a lot lower than a normal one.

-On Topicality: I'm hard pressed to grant an RVI here, more so than I am on other shells.

-I think disclosure is a good norm and am inclined to buy disclosure theory. With that being said, I'm far more sympathetic to small schools as I think they're at a strategic disadvantage to big school prepouts and the like.

-No default on DTD vs. DTA... I think that is for you to articulate to me which one I should go forward with.

-Reasonability is a question of the aff's counter-interp, not whether the aff is "reasonably topical"

K Affs: Go for it, although you should have good justifications for your model of debate, and why debating that specific aff in a certain round is good.

-I prefer affirmatives that are creatively topical or tangentially related to the resolution rather than straight up nontopical.

-If you're going to run a performance, you should have good justifications for what the specific performance accomplishes not just within debate in general, but also that round in particular.

-In K Aff v. TFW debates, I ideologically side with T Framework (probably around 60/40). This doesn't mean that all clash debates will lead me voting in this direction, and I don't let my personal preferences cloud my judgement of the round, but you should be prepared to answer this well and have good justifications for why your model of debate as well as your aff (performative or otherwise) is good.

Phil/Tricks: I'll evaluate these, but I'm not the best judge for these types of debates, given that I didn't really compete in or evaluate these types of debates most frequently. That's not to say that you can't run these, but just that you'll probably have to slow down a little, over-explain, and that I might not give the most coherent RFD at the end.

Traditional/Lay Stuff: Not much to say here. I’ll evaluate it. Just make sure to have a V/C (LD) and weigh stuff I guess. If you can do progressive debate though, I’d much rather listen to that.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Speaker Points/Misc.-

26-30-- 26= Poor | 30=exceptional. Most average debaters will fall around 28-28.4 speaks. Unclear speaking will result in docked speaker points.

*On rare occasions, you might receive a 25 for a couple reasons.

1.) Being unnecessarily rude to your opponent. This includes being overly aggressive or hostile to novices if you're an experienced debater.

2.) If you ask me to give you 30 speaks.

Stuff I Won't Vote On:

-Evaluate after [X] speech.

-Things that happened outside of the round.

-Unwarranted independent voter blips.

hi, i'm AJ! i graduated from Plano West in 2021 and competed in PF on the national circuit. my pronouns are they/them, and my email is ayi@college.harvard.edu.

- priority #1 is safety; be cognizant of your presence in the round/community, don’t be a problematic human being, use correct pronouns, provide content warnings with opt outs, etc.

- would strongly prefer if y’all came in preflowed and coin flipped/ready to go!

- outside of that, do whatever makes the debate enjoyable :) below are my preferences that might make it easier for you to win, but really do whatever you like. if you are compelling and/or justify decisions against my preferences below, you will likely be okay!

things i like in debate / things to know about me as a judge:

- i think about debate pretty similarly to renee li, alyssa nie, and aditya kumar.

- i'm quite expressive in response to what y'all say (though i also just nod/furrow my eyebrows in confusion a lot). i don’t like most pf arguments and still vote off of them so don’t be intimidated! but feel free to use my facial cues as you see fit.

- please prioritize warrants throughout the round, do not be blippy with them, and have clear extensions of your entire link chain and impact in the second half for anything you want me to vote on (including turns). any offense i vote on must be extended clearly in both summary and final focus and include good warranting.

- please collapse as much as possible. i really like smart analytics and strategic decisions, much more than blippy, unintelligent dumps of as much as you can possibly get through.

- new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such

- you don't need to frontline defense in 2nd rebuttal, but whatever you don't fl can be extended straight into 1st ff. i think it probably makes for a more in depth debate if you fl defense and collapse in 2nd rebuttal, but it's up to you.

- on weighing: being comparative between the actual nuanced arguments on the flow (as opposed to the general idea of an argument i.e. climate change) when weighing or responding is really really important to me. i am not too impressed with the meta of broad prereq weighing that doesn’t actually make sense when considering your link chain’s effect on the impact.

- that said, please weigh, and please start it by summary!

- dislike: doc botting, blowing up blips in final, independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal, excessively unclear speed, overgeneralizations of arguments or of the squo, jargon (define terms if absolutely necessary) being called judge, friv theory (unless its actually funny)

- don’t really care about: crossfire (feel free to take 1.5 min of prep instead of gcx), author names (just cite stuff consistently), most presentation things (sit/stand/whatever you’d like)

- super down to give as detailed feedback as y'all want, but i know thats not always what anyone wants to listen to immediately after an rfd. so i'll default to giving just the rfd - if you want advice beyond that ask me after round/message me. also please reach out even if you just want to talk about debate/hs/life! AJ Yi on FB, @aj__yi on Insta