Tabroom.com

Carmel Valley Round Robin

2020 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nibhan Akbar Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 11:44 PM CDT

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Danny An Hire 8 rounds

Sarvesh Babu Hire 8 rounds

Tejas Balaji Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 15, 2021 at 9:10 AM PDT

Update: If you do everything you can to make the round go as quick as possible, I will increase your speaks (joining early if pairings go up early, not frivolously calling for cards or taking forever to produce them, etc.)

I'm Tejas, I debated a couple years at Del Norte

I STRONGLY prefer it if you frontline offense and whatever you're going for in second rebuttal

Defense is sticky for the first speaking team for whatever the second rebuttal doesn't frontline. However, if the second speaking team DOES frontline, defense is NOT sticky. However, even if second rebuttal doesn’t frontline turns, they need to be extended in the summary for them to generate offense.

If they are extended from rebuttal to final by the first speaking team, given that the second rebuttal did not frontline them, they will be evaluated as terminal defense.

I need full extensions in summary and final

Weigh as early in the round as possible, preferably starting in rebuttal

I'm fine with speed, but send a doc if you're spreading or if your opponents aren't comfortable with speed

Collapse in the back half please

For theory, K's, tricks, etc. I'll evaluate it, but I'm not the best judge for it, as I haven't debated it much myself, so tread with caution

I usually default competing interps and always yes RVIs unless told to do so otherwise

I default con for policy resolutions and first speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm tab

Be aggressive and interrupt as much as you want during cross I literally don't care at all

You can also do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

You don't need to add me to the email chain, I'll call for evidence only if I'm asked to do so

I'm pretty nice with speaks, I'll usually average at least a 29

I don’t call for evidence unless told to do so

If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s

Have fun

Dylan Beach Hire 8 rounds

Stefan Boone Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 23, 2022 at 5:30 AM EDT

add me to the chain: stefan.boone12@gmail.com

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more. (However, dropped defense sticks to infinity if it goes unresponded to by the other team)

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense and responding to frontlines that are made, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interepretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the neg on presumption unless warranting given for a different way of presuming.

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am mostly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - ill give the highest the tournament allows me to

I cannot keep up with speeds over around 900 words /four minute. Give a speech doc if u plan on going faster.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Jeremiah B. Cohn Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 5:01 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Jeremiah!

Please add me to the chain: cohn.jeremiah@gmail.com.

Postround me/ask questions if you want

+.2 speak for good Bladee references

Experience

4 years of HS debate for Summit Highschool in NJ, Graduated 2022

4 years PF, 8 gold bids, and 4 silvers with 4 different partners, mainly ran substance & theory

1 year LD, reached 3 bid rounds ran stock/impact turns, theory/friv theory, tricks, Marx and Agonism, contracts, and a couple of NIB NCs

2 years of College Policy at Binghamton University, I'm a 2N, PoMo, Impact turns, theory. Qualified to NDT & cleared at CEDA twice.

Harrison RR (4/6/24)

I do not know anything about the LD topic

TLDR:

I will eval anything -- dogmatism is cringe & I hated losing cuz I read the wrong thing and the judge refused to evaluate -- be good at what you do and have a good time (morally abhorrent arguments are the obvious exception)

open cross & flex prep are fine

Clash Debates: I am probably 40/60 in clash debates -- I think T is a beautifully elegant technical argument & K teams often get bogged down in the LBL battle instead of winning the top-level stuff. My standards for T teams have also increased, your blocks should be contextual to the debate & the best 2NRs on T are not only technically proficient but also very persuasive.

The aff: win impact turns, top-level framing, or debate is bad.

The neg: win truth testing, limits, or good TVAs

That being said I love T vs policy affs.

Defaults: CIs, no RVI, presume neg in LD/Policy, 1st speaker in PF

Auto L for intentionally x-ist arguments.

I reserve the right to stop the round for safety stuff (ie misgendering)

One Winner / One Loser

Gut-check yourself, if you're debating a novice try to make the round accessible

clarity > speed, auditory processing disorder = slurred words are incoherent to me

My wiki from HS to get an idea of what I read: https://opencaselist.com/hsld21/Summit/JeCo

I read way more K now in college but my heart wishes I could still read NIBs

I am also cool w/ policy style debate but I will probably just enjoy it less

I never did trad LD

Speaks are fake and shouldn't be a tie-breaker -- why arent we using Opp W% like every other competitive activity?

I love a good case debate :)

Will eval "vote after x speech" but it requires me evaluating the rest of the round

Skep: I keep judging rounds w/ this super generic skep NC, I find it really boring, do with this information as you please. I enjoy paradoxes & random NIBs much more. Also, Skep vs non-pomo K affs probably caps ur speaks but is not an unwinnable position.

Policy

All the LD stuff applies here I could totally see myself voting for tricks in a policy round and would probably find it really funny

I debate policy in college

Good case debate >> lots of off. I think case debate wins rounds.

I'm also a sucker for good impact turns (spark, cap good, dedev etc)

Reasonability makes way more sense in this activity, I love theory though so if you have a good abuse story go for it.

probability weighing: unwarranted weighing will cap your speaks I don't have any idea of what is probable until technical concessions are made.

I debated this for 4 years of HS, but I pay 0 attention to the PF meta now

Theory was the a-strat when I could get away with it in PF

Warrant comparison and weighing r super important

TERMINAL IMPACTS PLEASE

Yes silly extinction scenarios but also yes warrants :)

I will tank your speaks for badly warranted % weighing. I have no idea what is probable or not. I care what is won in round.

1st Summary doesn't need to extend conceded defense, but ff probably should

My favorite PF arguments were tricky overviews that somehow framed out the opps offense or triggered presumption, if you do something like this well you will love your speaks.

Vishnu Dandi Hire 8 rounds

Ishan Deshpande Hire 8 rounds

Lars Deutz Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:21 PM CDT

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal

PF Summary/Final Focus

Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
Extend and weigh any argument you go for
Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded

Theory

Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense

Other non-standard arguments in PF

I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate

Post-Round Info

I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

Ishan Dubey Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:16 AM EDT

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com .

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Cole Flaherty Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 11, 2021 at 1:18 PM CDT

about me

pronouns they/them

attending University of Kentucky

conflicts: Lincoln High School (DSM, IA)

put me on the email chain: cflaherty1287@gmail.com

experience

three years in high school public forum (midwest, mix of lay and tech)

current college public forum debater

one policy tournament + loads of current college policy prep

overview

I love judging debates, and I believe that participating in debate in high school (or college) is one of the most impactful things you can do in high school. That being said, I gave debate a large amount of effort in high school, and I generally expect that you do the same. Good debate is difficult, and difficult debate is fun. As I have experience both competing and judging in several events, I will likely be able to take any argument that you throw at me. I am unfamiliar with the current public forum topic, but as far as I can tell, it touches a lot of argumentation areas that I have covered over the course of my high school career. Don't be afraid to run complicated stuff in front of me.

As for how I will actually adjudicate your round, I am a deep tech judge and my flow will decide the round. This means that signposting and strategy are incredibly important in any round where I am your judge. If you tell me where to flow something, I'll flow it there. Make good strategic choices, and stick to them. I am a "path of least resistance" judge. I will take the path on my flow that requires me to do the least amount of intervention in order to sign my ballot. This means that your final foci should consist entirely of ballot directed language that explain how you are traveling from the left side of my page to the right side, and how that makes you win the round. Tell me exactly how to vote, and if you do it properly, my RFD should match your final focus. Do not be afraid to ask questions after the RFD - I love talking about debate just as much as I love judging it. You can also e-mail me with questions.

argument preferences

Disadvantages / Advantages: Absolutely fine with me. I am leery about them in the second rebuttal, but I haven't made up my mind on that yet so feel free to try it.

Kritiks: Go for it, but I would prefer you didn't spread.

Theory: Go for it, but I would prefer you didn't spread.

Overviews: Absolutely fine with me.

Performance: Go for it, but if your offense comes from making the opponents uncomfortable, I would prefer that you didn't simply because they probably weren't coached on the concept of performance. If your offense comes from making me uncomfortable, I can take that and I'll evaluate it fairly.

I am happy to listen to you impact your arguments out to extinction, but because this is public forum, I am also responsive to traditional LD-style underviews that argue that long link chains diminish their probability exponentially with every link. I have no bias towards either argument, I am just saying that I am receptive to both.

I am unlikely to vote on extinction outweighs structural violence simply because I have yet to encounter convincing warranting for it. If you wanna try to convince me, go for it. As an individual impacted by structural violence, I am admittedly biased towards structural violence framing. I am not biased towards structural violence warrants or impacts.

If you run a ridiculously nuanced argument that attracts yet evades common core responses for the topic, I will likely be impressed. However, I will be annoyed voting for you, because I was a second speaker and I don't find "they miss the nuance" frontlining particularly fun to flow. Still, it's an easy way to score my ballot. I am more impressed by straight up unique arguments that haven't found their way into core topic literature yet.

speaker points

Receptive to 2x30 theory, and will probably do it. Speaker points suck in public forum, where judges are more likely to be biased.

Outside of that, you'll score higher speaker points if...

- You make sound strategic decisions

- Your extemporaneous speaking becomes harder to distinguish from prepared speaking

- Your extensions are solid

- You know your stuff in cross

bottom line

Make my decision easy and it'll be an easy win for you. Whichever way you choose to make it easy is up to you.

extra stuff

I am majoring in Neuroscience, minoring in Pharmacology, and my favorite topics are healthcare topics. If you lie to me about healthcare links or impacts, I'll know it, and I'll be annoyed.

My favorite past high school public forum topics were price controls and universal basic income. I generally have a preference for domestic topics over international topics. However, seeing as this is an international topic, I'll mention that my favorite international impacts to debate were oil prices, food prices, and unique warranting for nuclear war.

Maanas Gantla Hire 8 rounds

Saikumar R. Gantla Hire 8 rounds

Sam Goldstone Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 7:50 AM EDT

No Debate.

Firstly, If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it (this includes not flowing/being a lay judge lol I am g-d tier mom judge and won't intervene)

Here is how you should read my paradigm: at the top of each section is the most important stuff. If you only have a few mins read that. reading below those parts will provide a more in-depth take into my judging philosophy.

Update for Online Tourneys

I rlly can't follow like REAL spreading but I can take 99% of PF speed. I'll clear u if i need it. also ask questions if u have them and I'll answer as honestly as possible!

Most important part of my paradigm:

If you make or buy me a chicken parm or mac and cheese, I will get you prep on a topic or coach you for a round or something. I rlly like chicken parm and mac and cheese....

My name is Sam and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA. Was a meh first speaker and got carried imo. Now I'm a member of the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta.

TLDR: Normal circuit tech judge who likes warrants and logic and needs you to collapse on args

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before round or my RFD after round. (thx @Kate Selig for this idea: I'd rather you postround me than tell everyone I'm a bad judge )

Also, ask questions before the round starts! I might have thoughts on the topic you'll wanna hear. tbh also might not cuz I'm kinda dumb

Speed:

u can go fast, but don't like SPREAD SPREAD plz plz. i will try to keep up and clear u if need be.

I can flow it but only if you articulate well enough. 300 wpm and up I need a speech doc. The faster you go the more work I have to do and I'm lazy. I will always flow ur speed, but chances are if you feel the need to go too fast, then your time allocation was bad/you made bad strategic decisions. Also like fr just cuz u can go fast doesn't mean u should. Speed kills

Theory/Progressive args:

read whatever you want. i ran a cap k during medicare for all and loved it lol. I'd rather you not read random theory args just bc you want to win. if you're doing that, ASK YOUR OPPONENTS/DISCLOSE BEFORE ROUND. its rlly sh1tty if you don't. i can't emphasize it enough, reading theory on novices or people that don't understand what's going on = :(

don't run theory if u wanna get high speaks (or win bc i VERY much prefer substance)tbh --> i judged a team who read disclosure against an international team that clearly didn't understand how to debate it and it angered me to my soul. that's just really not cool. don't be mean. :(

but like if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it just like not happily

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

d-d-d-d-disclosure theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very (like actually completely 50-50) tab ras about disclosure, i do not think it is good or bad, just that it exists.

p-p-p-p-paraphrase theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very slightly biased (55-45) for paraphrasing good but its not hard to win paraphrasing bad.

all other theory/k stuff: if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

Cross:

it doesn't matter

Its useless to me. If you want to use an answer your opponent gives in cross, then say it in a speech. Don't be rude. Hug your opponent for a 30.

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to stand up and yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and your partner each get 30's. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get 26's for interrupting cross.

Framework:

I default util.

Explain it well and how I'm supposed to evaluate offense under it. the more complex, the more explaining u need. Framework debates aren't my absolute favorite but hey, you do you!!

Evidence disputes:

read ev if u want. don't miscut but i won't drop u for it.

I value all evidence equally unless you weigh it, which you should. You should ALWAYS tell me why I need to value your evidence more. also, evidence doesn't matter nearly as much as logical warranting. also like in general i won't call for cards unless ur like "sam call for this card" in speech. I think that calling for ev in any other circumstance is intervening.

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

You will get better speaks if: You make jokes. You give good speeches and make good strategic decisions. You aren't a dick. You make me laugh. I am extremely generous and tend to give out 29's routinely. I will give you a 30 if you are exceptional. *Send me a speech doc for an extra .3 speaks (sgoldstone514@gmail.com). Also extra .3 speaks for collapsing (if u do it correctly and it makes me happy) in 2nd rebutal. I guess I'm receptive to 30s theory but like it shouldn't be hard to get a 29.5 from me. I good example of really good strategy is what Jason Luo did in first final focus of TOC finals. also i will give speaks relative to the round and the level of competitors in the debate.

Here is an itemized list of my favorite speakers in no particular order:

- Rahul Shah (his voice is soothing and he's so damn cute)

- Claudia Leduc (gives summary without looking at the flow at all, hella impressive)

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

collapse in 2nd rebuttal. at least frontline offense and stuff. anything not frontlined is conceded.

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

I like roadmaps. I don't need defense in first summary. Don't extend too much in Summary, thats my biggest pet peeve FOR JESUS' (or any g-d u may or may not believe in, but if u wanna win the round do this lol) SAKE: COLLAPSE. When extending the argument you're going for, please extend the uniqueness, link, and impact in both speeches. An incomplete/ghost extension would a) make me sad and b) possibly lose you the round.

Please impact out turns in summary (although its better if this is done in rebuttal) if you plan on going for them. It is 100% okay to just go for a dropped turn. Also, u can go either line by line or give voters/do what you usually do. Don't extend through ink lol. Defense isn't rlly sticky it (unless u make an arg that it is in speech) but I'm less inclined to vote for a team that doesn't frontline at all even if their opponents don't extend defense.

Weighing:

Please weigh, and give me good analysis. It makes my job 1000x easier.

Earlier you weigh, the better. Weighing is very helpful in rebuttal, but NEEDED for me to vote in Summary and FF. With the new 3 min summaries, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to weigh in summary. No new weighing in 2nd FF, new weighing in 1st FF is unfavorable but if it's the only weighing in the round and they don't respond to it then like eh. If both teams win their weighing and cases and there is no meta weighing then I will vote for the team whose weighing was introduced earlier in the round (prereq/link ins weighing doesn't apply here bc if one case is a prereq to another then u vote for the prereq/link in). Does this favor the 1st speaking team? No, you can weigh (and do other fun things) in 2nd constructive. Unrelated but remember to weigh turns over contentions. If nobody weighs then i honestly won't know what to do. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args. jUsT mAk3 mY lyfE eAs1eR!!!

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

I vote on the weighed args first but if nobody weighs then i be big sad, but I'll vote on cleanest/clearest path to the ballot. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args and the paths are both clear/clean. If there is no offense in the round then I flip a coin to decide who picks up cuz choosing any other way is interventionist, but feel free to make warranted arguments abt defaulting to one side or speaking order. I will always disclose after the round and give an RFD. also PS lmfao u need to win the link into the impact that u weighed.

Other:

I will reward you for taking risks like collapsing on only a turn. Please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. I hate dumb analogies, chances are, even if you think you're funny, you're not. Don’t call me judge, that’s weird. If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

for every link into tourism you read, +.5 speaks lol.

i will never ever ever make any comments abt what you're wearing or how you speak. if a judge ever does, that's pretty messedup. i don't care if u show up in designer clothes or sweats. i enjoyed debating in sweats, it's comfy.

in outs, if i'm on a panel that's 2 other lays, u can tell me to judge it like a lay round and i will. (this means voting for the team that better establishes a narrative and is more convincing lol)

Do crazy sh1t fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

tbh unpopular opinion but evidence is dumb, debate should be logical. obvi like use evidence if u want but warrants/analytics are perfecto. I genuinely think that debate would be better if it was just logical warranting, evidence is bad. (obviously evidence matters but: warrant + authors name vs. just warrant? meh p equal unless u give me good reasoning to prefer the evidence. unless the evidence is like a fact like "x has increased y 200%" is obviously better than a reason why x doesn't increase y)

If at any point you believe that you have won the round with no way for the opponents to win, you can call a TKO, if you are correct it will be an auto W with 30s, but if you are incorrect it is a loss with 25s.

Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lol.

Above all, just have fun! Debate can get stressful so just try to breathe, chill and relax in round.

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

plz remind me of how many speaks you should win based all the crazy stuff in here lol i'll forget what i put here

Nathan Gordon Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 27, 2021 at 8:33 AM CDT

http://savethenautilus.com/

nl1gordon1@gmail.com

Background:

I debated at Abraham Lincoln High School (DSM) Public Forum for three years, I also did all kinds of speech events. During that time, I had something like ten different PF partners, and I never qualified to the TOC or Nationals, so take from that what you want.

General Round Stuff

I hate it when debaters are disrespectful, talking over each other, or arguing with the judge after the round. If you do any of these things, expect low speaker points right from the beginning. Misrepresenting the rules will have the same effect.

I will buy logical arguments that don't have 100% solid link evidence. For instance, if the resolution passes, Canada will do things the US doesn't like (Card), which means relations get worse (No Card), worse relations are bad because X (Card). Obviously if you are making big leaps and long link chains I need to see the evidence that says any of that is actually going to happen.

You need to weigh during the round as soon as possible. This is something I struggled to do, and only really started to understand at the end of my debate career. For judges, having all of the information during the round is great, but if there is no weighing, there is no way to expect the judge to vote for your case.

Dress how you want, if that is a suit and tie, khakis and a polo, or the stuff you woke up in. The content is magnitudes more important to me than the way you look.

Progressive Debate

I will have a hard time voting on things like theory or kritiks, but topicality is easy enough for my monkey brain to understand.

If there has been a clear violation during the round on the basis of someones sex, race, orientation, or ability, i will probably drop them before you even bring it up in a speech. That said, do bring it up to make sure I know about it.

Round Suggestions

You can do pretty much anything you want argument-wise. However, if you want to win the round you might want to do some of the things on this list.

Cost/Benefit. All you need to do to get rid of a framework the the other team suggests is say, there are impacts outside of that framework.

I need to be able to hear, understand, and flow your constructive, (and later speeches). I can tolerate some speed, but when your speed is approaching policy, you need to slow down.

Clash in the round. There should be arguments against their arguments. If the entire case round is spent on one side of the flow it becomes difficult to vote (unless there are link-turns or impacts-turns, but you get the idea).

Do a line-by-line for every speech except the final focus. It makes it easier for me to understand the details of the debate. If you skip around you will lose me in the minutia.

Extend your arguments. You can extend with card names, but you should tell me what the card says. If arguments are dropped early in the round, just to be brought up near the end, call it out. I would suggest still putting some defense on it in case you just didn't catch it, and it was never dropped in the first place.

Speaker Points

Speaker points should be a representation of how well you speak, hence the name. But things like round control, manners, and organization will also impact your score. Do not read 2x30 in front of me, and if you don't know what that means, good.

Cross was always one of my favorite parts of a debate round because it gives the speakers an opportunity to show off their topic knowledge. I will take cross into account when determining your speaker points. Once again, be polite, don't talk over one another or your teammates. If you control the cross, whether that be through asking dominating questions while allowing your opponent to ask some of their own, or answering questions in a way that allows you to fully explain your case/arguments.

Extras

Running Arctic Drilling, or weird enviro args -> +0.5 speaks.

Having an educated conversation during grand cross about the Nautilus pompilius -> I will like you more

Matlock Grossman Hire 8 rounds

Alex Jiang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 8, 2021 at 6:44 AM EDT

Short version:

- I vote off the flow

- Tech>truth

- Defense not frontlined in second rebuttal is sticky

- Warrant everything

- If there is no offense on either side of the flow and neither team makes a presumption argument, I'll flip a coin

- Don't be an *** and have fun!

Long version:

Preferences:

Speed - I'm bad at flowing. I can flow <215 WPM speeches pretty well but send a doc if you're planning to go over that.

Progressive Argumentation - Not too experienced with these arguments but I am comfortable voting on them. Please avoid jargon and explain these arguments in an accessible manner. If I think you're being exclusionary I'll tank your speaks. I'm mostly comfortable with theory, somewhat comfortable with K's, and not really comfortable with anything else. Ask me before the round to be sure. NO TRICKS. If you like tricks, you'll change your mind after watching this.

Tech/Truth - I can vote on any argument as long as it's explained well. I don't care how crazy it sounds.

Quantity/Quality - I always prefer quality. This means you should NOT read cases with more than four contentions and dump a ton of blippy responses in rebuttal. Every argument/response needs to be explained and warranted. Please weigh offensive responses when they are first introduced.

Front-lining in Second Rebuttal - Not mandatory but highly recommended.

Defense in First Summary - Defense is sticky. You only need to mention defense that was frontlined in second rebuttal.

Weighing - YES. PLEASE WEIGH unless you want me to intervene. Start as early as constructive if you want to. Make sure it's comparative or I'll ignore it.

Timing - Time yourselves and each other. DO NOT interrupt your opponents if they are going over time. I'll be mostly fine if you go <4 seconds over. At 5 seconds over, hold up your phone or something to let me know. I'll stop flowing.

Calling cards - Don't overdo it. If you want me to call a card after the round, tell me in a speech, but I probably won't call for it unless it affects my decision. It's up to you to explain your evidence well in round. If I call a card and see something good in it that was not mentioned in a speech, I'll ignore it.

Evidence Ethics - Don't misconstrue your cards but don't be super picky about your opponents' cards either. If you think a card is misconstrued, tell me to call for it. If it's a minor violation, I'll treat the response/argument related to the card as an analytic unless you convince me otherwise.

Content warnings - Please provide them if you're planning to read arguments about sensitive topics.

After the Round

Disclosing - I will if the tournament allows it

Questions - Ask me anything but don't be obnoxious. It's okay to ask me "how did you evaluate the _____ response in the round" but don't ask me "how did you evaluate the conceded terminal defense on the only piece of offense they went for." If you think I "judge screwed" you, grow up and get over it :) (or strike me).

Speaker points

I'll try to average 28.5. Great strategic decisions OR great speaking get you 29+. Great strategic decisions and great speaking will get you 29.5+. Rhyme your speeches to get a BIG boost (0.5-1 depending on the speech).

If I think that you were being exclusionary, rude, condescending, or offensive, I'll tank your speaks (or drop you depending on the violation). Please make the debate space safe for everyone.

Olivia Jin Hire 8 rounds

Iain Law Hire 8 rounds

Jason Li Hire 8 rounds

Isabella Liu Hire 8 rounds

Justin Liu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 4, 2022 at 5:42 AM PDT

updated for la costa 2020:

I'VE BEEN OUT OF DEBATE FOR MANY MONTHS. i used to judge practice rounds pretty often but i haven't in a while, so apologies if i'm not flowing everything very fast or i take a while for my decision.

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

canyon crest '20, georgetown '24

justinliu92130@gmail.com or jyl79@georgetown.edu

There is no "o" in "Public" so if you call it "PoFo" within earshot of me then I am calling the police.

I'll shake your hand unless you're sick or a GW/AU commit.

I submit my ballot after giving my RFD, so my Venmo is @liujustin1 if you're unhappy with my RFD. Don't post-round, just handle it like someone over the age of six would.

About myself:

I have four years of PF experience at Canyon Crest Academy/Carmel Valley (SoCal) with three years on the circuit. Please don't pander to me outside or inside of round, don't be racist, don't be sexist, don't be classist, but flaming your opponent is fine as long as it doesn't get personal. I'll probably boost your speaks if you do.

I was president of the team in my senior year, so please tell me if CCA/Carmel Valley has made anybody uncomfortable or been rude so I can complain to the new team leadership like a boomer. The speech and debate community was very close to a second home for me in high school and I want to keep it healthy.

I got a silver bid once. Don't ask me how STOC went - you'll just ruin my day.

MY LD/POLICY/PARLI/CONGRESS PARADIGM:

hehe

MY PF PARADIGM:

Short version:

tech > truth

please signpost

no new offense after first summary

no theory/k, i know real abuse when i see it

if you want something evaluated, have it in summary and also final

i am the rare judge who doesn't actually care too much about weighing

i am very big about accessing impacts, so make sure you extend accurately and signpost clearly

Long version:

General guidelines:

i judge how i want to be judged.

tech > truth.

no crazy theory/k. i know abuse when i see it. if i can't see it, it's probably not bad enough for you to sacrifice round content to read a long shell about something.

no plans or cp's either.

i think that pf debate is about what you say and not who you are, and any identity-based self-activism that isn't topical but that you want to affect the ballot is probably better for the ld or policy spheres. but if there's microaggressions or something egregious, i'll be more than happy to drop your opponent for it, especially if they're rude or dismissive about it.

coin flip while i'm present. the flip tension is the most exciting part of pf.

i'll only allow new evidence in summary if it's for a frontline or a frontline's frontline (so A2A2 or A2A2A2 for some people). no new evidence in final.

if it isn't in summary, it doesn't exist. continuing off of this, if it isn't in final, it doesn't exist either. if your partner only extends warrant 1 in summary but you only extend warrant 2 in final, you don't get either warrant.

if you don't terminalize your impacts, i will do it myself (probably to your detriment, since every debate impact is over exaggerated).

debate should be fun, so i will happily evaluate meme cases/weird args unless sensitive topics are emphasized in round.

please signpost.

if both teams have exactly no offense at the end, i default to the first speaking team. this will probably never happen.

no card-checking during crossfire (unless you give it to your partner - the non cross participant - to read). if you're wondering "what about during grand cross, when all four debaters participate?" then you're calling for a card after summary. please don't call for a card after summary.

call for a card, but read it during your own prep if you won't give it to your partner during cross. wi-fi is fine to pull up cards that you have linked.

i'll time your speeches (5-10 second grace periods after each speech), but not your prep. that's your opponent's job.

speak as fast as you want to, but do not sacrifice clarity for speed. "turn their impact" makes more sense than "aslkdjflkjaslejjfiowjejflkdfj".

if you spread, email me and your opps a speech doc. if you're going to speak faster than your opponents can comprehend - even if you aren't spreading - please give them a doc or slow down so they can understand you. inclusivity is priority #1 for debate. i will not allow you extra time to type up a doc, even if for accessibility purposes.

Round tactics:

Please extend cards as name (date only necessary if there's multiple cards with the same name) and some substance (in context of the flow is fine if you're accurate and clear. ex: "the second carded response on their second warrant that says xyz"). I will still extend cards if they are only named, although it won't help you if things get muddled and I get confused.

Any ink still left on your flow gets evaluated at the end.

If you extend an argument, summarize how you access it and its impacts (with numbers, preferably). Don't extend a contention without frontlining or at least acknowledging all critical links. I will notice if you drop your opponents' responses.

If you decide to kick out of an argument, tell me. I'll know when stuff is dropped, but it fares better for your speaks and my feedback when I know whether a drop was done purposefully or on accident. The easiest way to do this is to explicitly concede a delink.

Both summaries should frontline. Because of the new PF speech times introduced in 2019, first summary now has to extend defense to access it.

I will evaluate analytical (cardless) rebuttals, but only with solid warranting. This is where truth could come in over tech. Depends on how accurate you are and also what I know.

I "like" crossfire whether it goes "well" or "poorly." I like a good cross but I probably won't be paying attention, because a good cross to me is one I don't have to worry about. I won't evaluate anything said in cross, but every time you destroy your opponent based epic style with facts and logic in cross, I boost your speaks. If you're cringe, you lose speaks. Grand crossfire works one of two ways for me: 1) It isn't a yelling match and it gives me a general idea of who is winning what voter. 2) It becomes a yelling match and it's stressful for you but very funny for me.

Evaluation:

I default to lives > econ. Convince me otherwise.

I will evaluate policy-type big impact turns like "nuke war good" or "death good" if you warrant sufficiently, but I'm not inclined to agree with them. I won't evaluate "nazi good" or things like that because it's just racist and stupid. Please don't turn racism/sexism/etc.

I study politics, international relations, and warfare/military history and strategy. Please don't say something dumb like "China has more soldiers than America so they will win in a war" or "deficit spending causes recessions." Actually warrant stuff like this. Again, tech > truth overall, but I'll be less likely to buy this kind of stuff when things get muddled.

I won't intervene unless someone asks me to call a sus card or there's a medical issue.

I will try to clarify facts or topic knowledge to the best of my ability after round for your own educational benefit if I'm familiar with the topic (and so you don't get screwed in later rounds by someone who may know more about something), but mistakes or unknowns that aren't capitalized on by your opponents won't be weighed on my ballot.

I would appreciate if you weighed for me, but I will weigh arguments myself if you do not. I prioritize probability, which is followed closely by magnitude. If you want to use some less-known weighing mechanisms like reversibility, tell me in your speech why it is more important than probability.

If you run a non-CBA (cost-benefit analysis) framework, spend ample time on why it is the better framework. I think frameworks like "The resolution says 'United States' so we should only weigh impacts on Americans" are stupid and you should not run them. You would need to do a lot of warranting and explaining to even remotely justify these types of frameworks to me and it would be hard without sounding like an ultranationalist.

Narratives are cool.

Deception:

If you go up and say "unresponded to," "unrefuted," or "never responded to," but your opponents did respond adequately, I'll be less inclined to vote for you if the round is close. I won't vote you down for "lying," but I will not frame the round the way you want me to because you're demonstrating that you're snaky and deceptive. Please DO NOT be that team that only speaks well and can't debate. Spend your energy on argumentation - you won't have to worry about coercing my ballot with speaking unless I literally cannot understand you.

If you bring up new evidence or arguments in final focus, I will be very sad.

If you powertag intentionally or if you clip evidence in a significant way, I will be very sad and report you to your coach and tab.

Speaks:

If you're one of those teams, you might find yourself asking me "What's the easiest way to get a 30?"

Unless you go 6-0 regularly and want to get first seed or something, don't worry about your speaks. You'll win the round if you beat your opponent on the flow.

The easiest way to get a 30: Don't fumble your strategy or words and display solid partner synergy. Make it seem like you and your partner have debated this round a million times prior to now.

30: You're alright.

29.5: oh yeah yeah

29: oh yeah

28.5: yeah

28: nice

27.5: ok

27: hmm

26.5: hmmmm

26: yash gupta

25.5: yash gupta

25: yash gupta

0: just stop doing debate man

Karin Liu Hire 8 rounds

Jackson Loze Hire 8 rounds

Anmol Malviya Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 4:49 AM EDT

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (RC, SG, BG, LJ). traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

Syon Mansur Hire 8 rounds

Abel Medina Zambrano Torrey Pines High School

Last changed on Fri November 12, 2021 at 2:54 PM PDT

email chain —-> amedinazambrano@gmail.com

** Head speech and debate coach at Torrey Pines HS, I am currently competing in CEDA for Southwestern and I have 3 years of parli/LD experience prior. If you have specific questions about literature bases I’ve read or are familiar with; just send me an email and I’ll get back to you. If not, ask before the round or just read it and explain it to me. Read my entire paradigm if you can, otherwise scan for the bold text for the “Reading My Paradigm during Prep Time,” version.

1. I'll vote on anything (so long as it's not morally abhorrent). I am not going to create an exhaustive list of every morally abhorrent position but trust me, if your arg falls under this category you will be able to tell via my facial expressions in round.

2. I have a lower than average threshold on Theory. I’m biased towards potential abuse being enough but a case can definitely be made for a proven abuse burden. With a few exceptions I typically defer to a framework of competing interpretations unless told otherwise so tell me otherwise. If you’re deliberately spreading someone out of a round, I am likely to pick up their speed procedural regardless of who is winning the standards debate. Inclusivity and access are important. If it’s egregious, I’ll drop you on sight.

3. K debates are cool coming from either side. FW is a valid strat v Kaffs.

4. I don't have strong feelings for or against any specific type of counterplan. Just shoot your shot and be ready for the theory debate.

5. I think turns are very underused, while also being very under-explained, "straight" turns probably need to be paired with an argument on the uniqueness level otherwise they are functionally defence but with that being said, the opposing team needs to do that work in round.

6. There’s a really good chance I may have to intervene if you don’t tell me what I’m voting for in rebuttals (you probably dont want this) so git gud and do the explaining. Your rebuttal should write my RFD. Tell me about what impact scenario beats the other team’s. Give me framing and calculus. PLEASE. Whether it be the theory level or the link level or thesis level or alt solvency, whatever. Why are you winning this round? If you’re right, you’ll know it.

7. Pls remember that your framework can determine how (if at all) your arguments are received and interpreted.

8. Collapse.

9. I’m super down to have a faster than normal debate. You probably won't be able to lose me from speed alone but pls be as Clear as you can. If I am judging you in an ev. based format I care much less but I’m gonna ask that you slow for tags or send me a copy of the speech doc. (amedinazambrano@gmail.com)

10. Pls don’t make me judgekick a plan or theory shell. Tell me what to do with it, Bc you’ll be mad when I vote on the perm or rvi that was left unresolved. If you make shadow extensions from something said earlier that’s chill.

11. Abusing Power Dynamics will not win you this round. I like a sassy debate, I love seeing two close friends hash out a tough round but both opponents must be on the same page. If you’re a guy shouting down a girl in cross ex Bc you think it’s “dominating” or any other form of “machismo,” to put someone else down, I will tank your speaks and have a hard time voting for you and I will probably drop you. Ask for pronouns, names, etc. Also time yourself. I should be able to trust y'all.

12. Partner to Partner comm is fine but make sure your partner wants the help. Pls don’t control your partners speech time, I will not flow what the partner says, you gotta say it.

13. Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions about things I should be comfortable with in your round, Bc remember, it’s your round. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥ðŸ”¥

PS: Shouts to Khamani Griffin from whom I stole the format for this paradigm.

Aqil Naeem Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 4:26 PM EDT

I'm a typical flow judge that did decently well in PF while I was involved (qualled twice, won a quarters bid, etc). Only a few caveats:

1) I hate speech docs. I will not flow off the doc but off what I hear. I've never been unable to flow speed in PF (so far). If you go too fast, I'll ask for a doc.

2) I like evidence comparison, but comparisons that make me actually think are not good. Lay it out for me. Analyze the discrepancy, why it matters, and how it impacts my choice as a judge.

3) I hate weighing. Weighing is obviously a must, but I feel too much of recent debates I've judged have been "meta-weighing" and just back and forth on weighing as opposed to substance. I really like it when there's some clash on weighing, but even more emphasis on how people win the actual substance of the argument and how the arguments implicate under the weighing. I'd prefer you to add how your contention fits your opponent's weighing mechanism more than you reading pre-written reasons why your weighing mechanism is good.

4) As hinted earlier I dislike things that are pre-written (especially rebuttal and summary). Makes for boring debate and ruins the educational value of each round. I won't dock speaks (my partner also only read off a doc lmao), but I will not give you a 30. I'm looking for responses in rebuttal that are specific to the particular details in your opponent's case, weighing/frontlines in summary that are also pertinent to the debate, etc. I'm here to judge your ability as debaters, not readers lol.

5) I know how to evaluate theory from my LD days (a long time ago, keep that in mind), but not Ks that aren't simple like Cap Ks. If you decide to run these arguments, I hope you're okay with a possible judge screw, or ready to explain the crap out of your argument. The best explanations often end with "_____ means that you vote for _____"

6) I know I'm asking you to explain a lot and terminalize it into my decision, but I feel that's the only way for me to limit judge intervention. I will never make a cross-application of arguments/weighing/anything for the team- make it yourself. I will not presume for a side for you either. If somehow I have to presume I'll vote for the team with higher speaks, then deduct 2 points from both teams.

7) Most importantly have fun, keep it civil, and enjoy the tournament. If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know!

Aboo Nasar Carmel Valley Independent 8 rounds

Razeen Tameem Nasar Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 3:48 PM EDT

They/them ( Ask for other ppls in rounds pls!!)

You can call me whatever. Razeen, Judge, ご主人様.

email chain: razeennasar1@gmail.com

As a judge I critique y'all with feedback. However, I feel judges can't be told about their competency. Especially with the position of authority. Please don't see me as an all-knowing authority figure. I am a student just like y'all. I sleep, go to school sometimes, and am a disappointment to my parents. I'm human not a debate robot. You can use this form to criticize my judging without having your name attached. Or say I'm not lame and I did well.

Note: everything cut down word wise so it takes less time. Hence bare bone wording. Pls ask for elaboration irl :) Based on average reading speed TLDR will take 1 minute, whole thing 6.5 minutes of reading. Immensely cut down from initially 20 min(egregiously long).

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeRkloyjH8sARng_HNNNPtHhlMFaIrPK0jekgp7bspJ9jppeg/viewform?usp=sf_link

Speaks:

If you look at my speaking points history I'm generally pretty generous. If you do 4 things for me I will give you 30 speaks for free!

Ask your opponents for pronouns or just have some exchange related to that in round
Email me your case so I can read along while you read your case (if I miss anything I can reference back or re-read during cross). Don't make excuses about why you can't. If you don't want to then just don't do it. The only exception I will make is if you show me the TOURNAMENT doesn't allow me.
Finish your speech coherently and use like 95% of your time with legitimate substance.
Send evidence efficiently and don't waste time in between speeches or waste time in general.

For every one missed I'll doc 1.25 speaks. If you are just mean or rude to your opponents then I'll just give an auto L with 25 even if you win on the "flow".I have no tolerance for being mean :) I will try my best to find reasons to vote against people who are borderline mean through the flow too. A respectful environment is a prerequisite to people feeling comfortable to debate! All these asks for me are EXPECTATIONS, not preferences!

SHORT I DONT WANT TO READ AN ENTIRE THING OF NONSENSE BUT I WANT TO KNOW THE JIST:

Did HS PF debate+ college parli. was okay in HS pretty good in college now.

Mostly, Tech>Truth. However, don't use tech to bully. Still subconsciously influenced by bias. Uncontrollable. Some arguments I inherently understand more.

IF IM MAKING EYE CONTACT THAT MEANS I AM CONFUSED AND DON'T KNOW WHERE TO FLOW NOT THAT I AM LISTENING INTENTLY!!! IF YOU TAKE ANYTHING AWAY TAKE THIS!!! At one point I get self-conscious if I look too much in confusion when I don't know what to flow and look down. >~<

Pf 2nd rebuttal frontlines. No New Offense FF not in summary. Policy/LD don't know extension norms thus gonna be forgiving w/ extensions.

Generally against tech being topicality, Theory, and Ks Would consider non-disingenuously for real abuse/problematic rhetoric.

Spreading can't flow fast so it's bad. Don't sound like you are drowning.

Extinction big no no. Unless topic calls for it. No daylight savings causes extinction(real round)

Make sure not same impact scenario. Don't weigh Nuke war w/ Russia against Nuke war w/ Russia on magnitude. Compare links. Talk about uniqueness.

I prefer warranted low magnitude high probability vs high magnitude low probability. Even if an argument outweighs, if it isn't extended well and I can't explain it I won't vote off it. Argument understandability is a prereq to voting on any argument for me. I have ALOT of rounds where I vote for an impact cuz it's the only one explained.

Jargon pls no. I barely know prog debate.

Don't expect me to understand afro-anthropessimism pre-post modern feminist neo liberal hauntology @400WPM.I barely understand my college lecturers at 1/4th that speed. even at normal pace without accessible wording I won't get it. 100% have not read your arg lit before. Need slow good explanation for new concepts to me aka most of arguments.

Don't assume I remember what each author said. I don't remember 1/2 of UCSD debaters in a quarter. You think I'm gonna remember aiusdbh 13 from the 1NC 45 minutes ago.

PF DEBATE

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

Pls email me your cases before the start of the round.

Pls frontline in 2nd rebuttal rather than 2nd summary

I will vote off turns if not blippily read and make sense.

Pls use voters in the final focus and COLLAPSE. I'm serious about collapsing.

I... am lazy and use single-use paper plates cuz I don't like doing dishes, but also my romantic partner is in marine biology and roasts me for single use plastic... aka I can see both sides :)

POLICY DEBATE

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

Don't understand "new sheets" and flowing is hard. Though i try my best. Most decision focused on 1/2 AR/NR. Better to be honest it's hard for me than lie. Sorry! I will try to be as informed as possible by the round. Pls bear with my stupidity. Know I'm trying my hardest to give a good decision.

PARLI DEBATE

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

I compete in college parli. I have no clue what the norms are in HS parli. College parli is basically policy without the cards. So that is how I see parli. Pls don't try to spread it's already painful to hear in college. If it's the norm I'm fine with topicality and Counterplans. Please don't read an aff K, and if that isn't a norm yet thank god. I am open to K arguments if it isn't used to shut out opponent and outspread them with complicated jargon.

I have won 4 college parli tournaments this past year so like I feel like I know what's up with parli.

I love debates that are on topic and have relevant and easy to understand arguments that have nuance!

Longer preferences

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

I am an idiot

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

I'm stupid, not a humble statement. Don't let the absurd length fool you. It's a sign of insecurity, not knowledge. This is at the top for a reason. I make wrong decisions when forced to think myself. Verbally make a speech that I can nearly mimic in my RFD.

I'm not competing so don't assume I know topic-specific acronyms/words are. Common sense ideas to you aren't common sense to most people. I can't figure out push or pull doors don't think I can figure out your argument.

Debate jargon for prog is a no no. Just take the couple of extra seconds to explain. Don't assume arguments. Explain things like "fairness/education voter" and "reasonability means judge intervention" even though seems common sense explain why these are good/bad.

Fully explain all your args. The reasons why an argument is logically true beyond evidence.

Don't say extend from past speech. I already forgot that last speech bro. I have the short-term memory of a goldfish. Think of it this way, in your classes if your teacher says expanding on what was said 15 minutes ago, and doesn't somewhat reexplain there is simply confusion.

Access

--------

Don't use tech debate as a way to bully new debaters. Tech is meant to make debate fairer, and challenge knowledge. Instead, it's become a tool used by the privileged to win silly arguments with coach-made responses that less-resourced schools can't beat. Don't contribute to bad debate norms I will be sad.

Experience:

HS PF+ College Parli. was mid in HS (4-3 STOC). College I got better & have won tournaments. College parli is budget policy w/out cards. However, I'm mostly a topical debater. Vaguely understand/use CPs/T/Ks/Theory.

General debate

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

In short, I will try to find the quickest way and clearest way to vote. If an argument is messy I'll likely vote off something way smaller that may not even outweigh. I want your last speeches to be what you want me to say in my RFD.

Tech Truth?

I am generally tech over truth with a couple of exceptions

When tech is used as a means to exclude
Dump low-quality args hoping for drops.
Arguments are clipped
Borderline false args e.g Nuke war good(low threshold for response)

Case

Please send case. Allows me to flow. Flowing helps me keep track. More likely to vote for yall. Also just good practice.

Rebuttals

Please try to signpost. By that I mean if you directly say, which response with things like " on x argument, their yth response about z we have x amount of responses. or if it's 1 response give the response.

Also, please don't say "no evidence, no warrant, no explanation" rather explain why the lack of a warrant means their argument is false and what it actually is like. Also, I am down for logical arguments. Not everything needs to be carded if it's analytical. If something is analytical like "no one wants to be nuked" and you say nO eViDenCe then there is no way I'm voting on the response.

Final speeches:

Please voters. Frame independent reasons to vote rather than line by line. go reasons why you win, and cover defense/turns on their offense.

Line by line = Line w/out the ine.

While I try to exclusively flow. Directing me on the flow can make me interpret the flow in a better way for y'all. Will focus on what I'm told to. So focus on best args.

Pls collapse. 1 good arg>3 bad arguments. Either you collapse or my mental health collapses.

Don't say "extend (author)" or "extend my response on x argument." extend what the author says or the argument itself. If you don't explain your arguments and just assume I know them I won't vote for them!

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

Weighing

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

I.Will.Do.Anything.I.Can.To.Not.Vote.On.Bad.Extinction.Scenarios.Within.my.Power.as.a.Judge.

Exceptions are topics that kinda rely on those ideas. Like Conflict for NATO/ great power conflict. Or climate change for PRC econ or enviro. Heavily prefer against it.

Probability weighing:

Fleshed-out arguments are rewarded. Don't go for the "risk of offense infinite magnitude extension multiply infinity." not gonna vote on that. arg of "risk of offense" means you aren't good enough to defend case. a low chance of your case to me is a 0 chance. However, the opponent needs to win probability claims.

Same/similiar impact weighing:

Make sure you aren't having exact same or similar impact to the opponent then OW on "magnitude"

Many topics have different sides same impact. Rather than weigh impacts you compare links or compare uniqueness. Uniqueness is the better route for me. 2 possible ways to deal w/ clash IMO.

1.Mostly look to Uniqueness 70% of time. Is SQUO going good or nah. If going well why fix something that isn't broken. Inversely, if things going wrong we need to take action to fix.

2. Distinguish impacts. Explain why your scenario uniquely links more. Maybe it's more specific. It affects more countries. It has bigger actors. Your link bigger than theirs. Whatever way to show e.x how your link into nuke war is better than theirs.

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

Progressive Debate

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

Structural Violence: Only prog argument I vibe with. Main it center of your narrative. Don't make it secondary defeats the purpose of prioritizing underprivileged if you deprioritize them by dropping arg on it.

Spreading: I can't follow it at all. I'll try to follow doc. Tell me what you cut from it. Heavily prefer not. Don't use as a way to shut out opponents. Will insta L.

Topicality:Don't read to add an extra layer. I will be sad. Don't make bad debate norms. Abusing new teams w/out resources to learn about debate in the meta sense is shameful. Only read if legit non-topical. If actually hurts ability to debate use it. Don't say "fairness/education voter" explains why. Default reasonability.

Kritik:I PROMISE I don't know your lit. I am stupid. keep it simple. Don't use area-specific lingo. If you have to have heard it before to know it don't read it. If you can't be simple w/ it that means you don't know it. Kinda troll nowadays become cancelling your opponent for "insert ism"

I have, lately, been more sympathetic to them in certain instances. I am fine with Kritiks on nuke war impacts, western construction of "terrorists," Orientalism on China impacts, Democracy promotion bad/ causes othering, AI deserving rights, Speed bad K, and tech debate bad K. Ultimately, I won't want to vote on a K that can be linked to anything and any topic. I feel that anything that is legit misunderstood and really messed up to the point where it shouldn't be "seen from both sides" is a place I would legit evaluate a Kritik.

K aff: No lol. screams "I'm not good enough to defend the topic, and I'm lazy." If you feel passionate anyway read it.

Theory:Frivolous theory will lead to AUTO L 25. Won't deal with it. Default RVIs. Minimal experience judging theory. The threshold for abuse is high. Must prove in-round abuse, not potential abuse.

MISC

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

If you made it down here Idk why you wasted time reading this far lol

Disclose decision:

Yes, if tourney allows. Will try to be quick. Will try to be constructive as possible. If not being constructive lmk. Want to talk about strengths, improvement areas, the round itself, if you loss potential paths to the ballot. For winning team how to make more clear. A lot of apologizing. Pls if you have an issue bring it up w/ me directly rather than say stuff outside of round. I want to clarify and not "judge screw" as I had that as a debater I felt and ik the frustration. If you found RFD good bad you can give feedback on form.

If flight 1 goes quickly I will give feedback. If y'all troll with timing I'll just type my feedback. I assume y'all prefer to hear, just start the round ASAP.

NDCA wiki:

If you disclose that's cool and awesome! However, I'm not receptive to disclosure theory in PF. In other events, if used to bully new debaters that won't be tolerated.

Decorum:

The presentation has a subconscious effect on everyone. Will try to prevent that.

No tolerance for rude debaters. Will drop if bad enough rudeness. Don't be overly rule stigent/ talk over people/ be snarky/make too many faces. Also, will lower speaks. Be nice! Isn't hard. Will give high speaks otherwise.

IRL politics:

Pure tab judge is impossible and fake. IRL knowledge sphere is Marxism. not the "government does stuff" leftism though. Fine with being critical of America and the economy.

Eric Park Hire

Alessandro Perri Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you don't.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that crow about their opponents missing a "hidden link" or doing weighing to the effect of "prioritize strength of link because it leads to less intervention".

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument. I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. Fairness bad arguments are illogical. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

Shiv Puliady Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:18 AM PDT

please make the round entertaining, don’t be overly annoying or rude, explain everything thoroughly, I refuse to read a case doc, paraphrase good, disclosure bad, have fun.

dont let me get bored and make sure to smile :)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

TLDR: Extend and Weigh! Rounds that end in a timely manner will result in higher speaks for everyone.

Paradigm:

Please flip before the round and let me know what topic, side, and order right before the round starts. Preflow too. Don't take too long to find a card/evidence.

Tech > Truth

here is how I evaluate rounds:

- prefiat > framework > weighing > link/impact

- frameworks should have clear warranting as to why I should reject an alternative framework and the default CBA/util framing. Don't just assert it.

- Extend full arguments and weigh. If there is no extension, then I can't vote for the argument. I love extensions. please extend. extend please. extensions are important. Reexplain the argument like I am a close friend who does not do debate trying to understand what your argument is on a topic they have vague information on. Be decisive with your language. But make sure to be concise! (if you can’t tell extensions are really important)

- Don't extend through ink and warrant as much as you can + arguments extended in FF should have been in summary.

- In 2nd Rebuttal: just please frontline the argument you are collapsing on and respond to any relevant offense, including turns, DAs, case. no reason to reread your own case. i care more about extensions in summary and final so no need to reexplain anything other than responses to their responses in this speech. Extensions in 2nd rebuttal make no sense!

- Please do not be abusive with disads in 2nd rebuttal. I will be reluctant to vote on it if it is not well warranted or weighed or if it feels wonky. (tip: try to phrase it as a turn so I don't think about it too much). I'm not a fan of DAs in read in rebuttal in general so just make sure its fleshed out like a contention from case is.

- Concede arguments in the speech right after

- Summary needs to extend defense (make sure you respond to what they say against it)

- I would appreciate if you would skip grand cross and go straight to final (That being said I'd rather watch GCX than sit in silence so if you need prep, just do GCX, I won't give flex prep) (if in a panel, check with other judges)

- Please weigh.

- I won't evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF, unless no one else does weighing at all or the weighing debate just becomes confusing. I would recommend starting weighing early.

- Respond to your opponent's weighing in the speech right after they bring it up.

- When there are two competing claims/pieces of evidence that cannot be true at the same time brought up by two teams, do comparative weighing for me to evaluate which argument I should prefer.

- I like reasonably paced debates where debaters make use of rhetorical persuasion rather than fast debates. I prefer not using a speechdoc to flow. This means speak slower.

- I will only call for evidence if I believe it will impact my decision/not cleared up in the round (or if I am just interested).

- Important stuff in cross should be brought up in a speech if you want it flowed.

- I don't flow cross so make your crossfires funny and entertaining to watch (be nice/respectful) or have a good in round strategy for 30 speaks.

- I don't really know much about Ks or theory (and other pre-fiat arguments), but I have had experience debating and judging those types of rounds. If you choose to run these arguments make sure to make it super simple for me to understand how I am supposed to vote. Make sure to read it because you believe in the actual argument, not because you want to win a debate round. I reserve the right to vote however I want when it comes to prefiat (and usually I am biased against most progressive arguments, so keep that in mind). I might just become a lay judge if I want to. I will say that im fine with teams reading theory in a paragraph form so you dont have to waste an entire speech on a full shell. just make sure that you still have the same parts that a shell may have.

- If there are no lines of offense for your opponents to win off of, feel free to call TKO. If there is no path to the ballot for your opponents left, I'll give you the win and 30 speaks. If there is, then you will lose the round.

- If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s.

- i'll become a lay judge if the round becomes boring.

- Give me food and magical things will happen.

Srikar Satish Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 4:43 AM CDT

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

Theory (but not stupid and friv)
Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
Framing / Meta Weighing
I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

Jungwoo Seo Torrey Pines High School

Last changed on Fri January 27, 2023 at 8:55 AM PDT

(Scroll down for my PF paradigm)

Defaults

Comparative Worlds

Theory/T -> K -> Case

Reasonability

Drop the arg

No RVI

Fairness

Ethical Certainty

Presume Neg

Quals:

I do LD. I've qualled to the toc and reached deep elims in a few tournaments.

Disclaimer: I haven't done anything debate-related for two years, so I will be rusty with getting back into it.

LD:

Framework: I enjoy framework debates. Although I am a progressive debater, I do understand and can vote off of framework if sufficient enough for me. Just remember to extend reasons as to why your framework should take precedence in this round. Also, don't confuse your case with the framework and cross-apply your case arguments to justify your framework. They are two very different layers of debate.

Kritiks: Kritiks are my favorite part of debate. If you are planning to run a K, please make sure you understand how to debate a K and know sufficiently about the K to debate it.

Theory: When there is real in-round abuse, I think theory is a good check to it. However, when you run theory just for the sake of winning, it's annoying. I will vote off frivolous theory and a priori arguments but with very great displeasure (expect a drop of speaker points). Disclosure is probably good.

Topicality: Topicality arguments are great.

P/CP: Case arguments that pertain to the topic are great. I like clever plans and counter-plans. PiCs are great as well. I'll take whatever you got but remember to extend.

Contentions: If you aren't a progressive debater, this may seem more familiar to you. I am completely fine with lay and traditional arguments, and don't let the previous stuff scare you into thinking that.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the rebuttal speeches, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments and be explicit.

Add me to the email chain if you are spreading: jungwoo.seo@emory.edu

Please don't spread if your opponents can't either; it's abusive and doesn't promote educational practices that way.

PF:

If you're going to be fast, don't read paraphrased evidence. I will not flow it.

Framework: Although I know that PF is more of a contention level debate, I have seen interesting frameworks being used, so I'm open to new and interesting frameworks that work on proving your point. I default to CBA if no framework is mentioned.

Contentions: You are free to use whatever arguments that you think may help you and if I think you won that, I'll vote for it.

Crossfire: I think crossfire is my favorite part of PF debate. Please keep it civil but don't be afraid to make some sassy comments or ask good questions.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the summary speech, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: This is critical, especially in public forum. I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments.

Defense: Defense is not "sticky." You need to cleanly extend the defense you want me to evaluate in the summary and ff if you want me to evaluate it.

Theory: I will evaluate theory just as how it is evaluated in LD and CX. You do not need to ask your opponent if you can run theory or not; that's silly.

Please don't shake my hand, thanks.

Arnav Sinha Hire 8 rounds

Jack Levi Skipper Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 18, 2021 at 1:20 PM PDT

Hey I'm Jack I debated for La Salle for four years. got a bid and broke at most of my tournaments.

debate is a game so be nice. as i have been removed from this activity for a bit my paradigm may make me sound OVERTECHNICAL than my current views as a judge. ill try my best to keep up but im not super invested in debate anymore.

frontline turns second rebuttal. should also probably frontline what u will collapse on in second rebuttal (including defense) as well. defense is sticky in first summary. turns can be extended as terminal defense in final if theyre not in summ.

one note! i can flow pretty well it but if im unfamiliar with the topic slow down so i dont miss things. havent participated at all since i graduated. comfortable with progressive debate like Ks theory framework etc.

i will try to be as noninterventionalist as possible. however, if u implicate evidence in a way very obviously how it was not intended i might not listen to it. i'll call for ev that sounds sketch if it's important to my decision. debate is supposed to be educational so i see it as an ethical burden to improve this activity.

Important nit picky preferences:

- It's a growing norm in PF to say that defense is a turn or that mitigation is terminal. Please stop. It hurts my soul. And it will hurt yours too when I drop your speaks.

- Weigh whenever you see fit especially if you dont want me to intervene.

- I prefer theory be read in shell form.

- If your response Structural Violence is commodification of the ballot I prob won't vote off that response because everyone commodifies the ballot and also that's such an in-substantive response. If you read my paradigm and do it anyways u get bad speaks.

- I like listening to crossfire because I don't know anything about the topic and learning is fun but everything I vote off of must be in speech. Cross might help you get ahead on competing warrant clash perceptually but the substance needs to be in the other parts of the round!

-Don't go new in the two (final focus).

-Have cards available so we dont need to waste time. If a team calls for a bunch of cards and you provide them all quickly and theyre good ev ill give u 30s.

Jacob Spiegelman Hire 8 rounds

Nikola Tran-Mihail Hire 8 rounds None

Andrew Tsai Hire 8 rounds

Kushan Weerakoon Hire 8 rounds

Cara Wilson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 19, 2020 at 12:24 PM PDT

hi! i'm a senior at westridge and been debating for a bit i know some things but you probably know more

tldr: don't neglect your link or i will be sad, weigh weigh weigh, if you extend through ink i'll be sad, 30's for everyone, be nice

go as fast as you like, 250 is my max w/o a doc, but make sure your opponents are chill w it

rebuttal: please frontline in 2nd rebuttal. i really like weighing on their case (ie why its a bad place to vote) early in the round. analytics are great. implicating your responses is amazing: if you read me 13438 cards tell me how they apply. signpost, please! layered responses make me happy: don't just read general stuff go link by link warrant by warrant and i will love you! no offensive overviews in 2nd rebuttal, aka no overviews that are like another contention. just read it in constructive if it's that important.

!!! femxles: you can be as aggressive as you want, please don't feel like you need to fill the sexist model of girls in debate {i have a particular soft spot for girl/girl teams as I was on one}. conversely, if you do something sexist (or racist, homophobic etc) you will get a long talk about why that is bad and be automatically dropped

i have fewer preferences for the second half of the round but:

summary: is hard. be clean please! defense is sticky (you don't have to extend it through summary if they don't frontline). frontline dropped turns! but make sure your frontlines are responsive, not just restating the argument. make sure when you extend, you extend the whole arg: the links, the warrants for the links etc not just card names. do your thing.

ff: weighing is the way to win! woooo! no new weighing in 2nd ff unless it responds to new weighing in 1st. please make your summaries and ff mirror each other it's just sexier.

misc:

-i like it when you give speeches off your flow

-postrounding: please see elizabeth meersons paradigm

-please don't call me 'judge'

-i'm a bit mean in feedback but i respect you endlessly for giving debate your time. this is where i get all meta: you have 6 minutes of uninterrupted time of just you speaking. everyone, by rule, has to listen to you and can't interrupt. isn't that so powerful!!! debate is the only forum like this. respect that time. what can you do with that time? i am on your side: believe me, i want you to be the next winner of the toc when you walk into the room. because i want you to have a good round as much you do.

-i can't spell

-the only acceptable bribes are cash and sour patch (jk but sour patch is good)

-speaker points: totally arbitrary. i love 30s; i start at a 29. speaks go up or down depending on a) my mood b) how the flow is in round c) if you are funny d) weird formal-ness makes me sad e) if you take a risk and it pays off f) i have a soft spot for debaters saying weird things - my partner could tell you that...

while i'm at it: be nice to your partners; be nice to your parents. they worked really hard so you could be here.

Nathaniel Daeyoung Yoon Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 3, 2023 at 4:52 PM EDT

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

Allen Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 22, 2020 at 8:48 AM CDT

General Information about me:

I was a former Public Forum Debater and I also have some experience in LD.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose. Be ready to get roasted in my RFD. I will not tolerate any rudeness or ANYTHING that would not be said in school. I will not allow either side time before the start of the debate to preflow. This is no different than saying "I need some time to cut more cards for my aff/neg". This is something that should be done before you get to the tournament let alone before the debate is scheduled to start.

If there are ANY Questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Public Forum

Round:

I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
Never extend through ink. Every time you do, I dock half a speak.
Any Terminal Offense or Defense must be in Summary and Final Focus for me to evaluate it.
The 2nd Rebuttal must defend against the 1st rebuttal. It is unfair if you do not.
It is abusive to have Offensive Overviews in the 2nd rebuttal, I will not flow it.
I want a Road map for every speech after summary. Make sure you plan it out. Don't just say "I will sign post you", that for me is the same as "I don't know what I'm going to say". I expect you to signpost throughout your speech.

Arguments:

I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive do it right. Extend the narrative starting from case across every single speech.
If you decide to run a Kritiks, do not run non-topical Ks except if it is a Language K.
Framework is not needed in Public Forum, but if you read framework, that will be the 1st thing I will vote off.
If you run tricks, see what happens (don't blame me if you drop)

Delivery:

When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
I do not flow CX, bring it up in your next speech if you want it flowed. I will not tolerate rudeness in Cross Fire. Also, please do not make it a yelling match.
If you are going to talk at a speed that is not applicable to a Lay Judge, you better disclose.

Lincoln Douglass

Round:

I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
Never extend through ink.
Road Maps are a must please.
If you are going to spread please disclose. I am not that used to spreading

Arguments:

I prefer traditional LD, but that said, everyone will go progressive either way so.

K: I do not prefer Ks and will most likely not vote off it. That being said, if you decide to run a K, please make it relevant in round.
Topicality: Topicality is great. I want good standards if you want me to vote off a T shell. I don't really like RVI on T. Being topical is very important to debate to me.
Framework: This is where you want to win for me. This will always be the 1st place I will vote.
Theory: I think theory is a good way to check abuse, nothing else. If you run theory for something I do not feel is abusive, I will not evaluate it.
CP: Counterplans are good. If you are winning the CP, don't be afraid to go for it. This is the 2nd place where I could vote for Neg.

Delivery:

Don't sacrifice speed for clarity.
Make a distinctive speed difference with Tags and Cards.
Disclosing to me is the best option, if you are not clear, I will not evaluate the argument and I will lower your speaker points. If you decide to not disclose, the Tags MUST be clear

If you have any further questions email me at zhangallen05@gmail.com

Justin L Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Benjamin Zhao Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Carmel Valley Round Robin

2020 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges