Tabroom.com

Delta Debate Academy Summer Tournament

2020 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Hattie Bilson Lambda BS

Alec Boulton Lambda HB 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 12:32 PM PDT

alec.j.boulton.molero@vanderbilt.edu

My name is Alec, you can call me that and not "judge" <3

-General-

Tech > truth, "tabula rasa" whatever.

Make these rounds interesting. Debate is a game, have fun with it!

Postround.

Cool with anyone speaking in cross.

Ignore my facial expressions.

If you think something is missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging. You can also ask me paradigm questions in-round, but I won't give answers that will advantage one team.

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez who says M4A grows the economy" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Be quick with evidence or read off cards/send card docs, I'll hard dock speaks.

-Traditional-

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline defense, just offense (including implications and weighing).

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. Clear up mess, I'm not voting on unarticulated implications. Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.

-Progressive-

I increasingly feel the need to specify that I have a bar for warranting in progressive debate: understand what you're saying. Don't assume I'll vote on your shortcuts. Nothing to be scared of, if you think you'd normally be fine you shouldn't need to change your debating. Anything is fine, just be clear with offs and actually make warrants.Think through what you're doing and try to explain your position to me as though the goal was to fully get me to understand your argument.

If the other team didn't explicitly agree to have a prog debate and they make any abuse claim, I'll drop you. The exception is in-round violations that require theory, but in that case at least be clear pre-speech about what you want to do.

Speech by speech responses are fine, extensions start in summary.

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly bias and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read. I'll judge those debates.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of why you are debating. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Trust yourself. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

-Speaks-

If you care about this (which you should!!!), here are some things you can do to up your speaks:

- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)

- be nice (or really just don't benot nice)

- don't steal prep time, it's always obvious

- have your evidence ready

- play fair

- literally just don't give me a reason to drop your speaks. I'm not trying to give out 30s, but I like giving higher-end speaks when I see genuine debating and real attempts to engage with this activity :)

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Inko Bovenzi Hire 8 rounds

Cooper Carlile Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 9:12 AM EDT

he/him.

I debated for Strake Jesuit for four years in Public forum and graduated in 2020. I am a senior at Georgetown University studying Science, Technology, and International Affairs. I won TFA State my senior year, and I qualified to the Gold TOC my senior year with bids from Glenbrooks and Grapevine.

Bold is the most important stuff, but everything else is still important.

email is cooper.carlile@gmail.com and you can facebook message me

Tell me what the structure of the speech is beforehand.

Please extend. If you don't extend, I wont vote for you. If it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it.

It has been a while since I have judged/flowed. Anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech docotherwise I probably wont catch everything especially if i'm unfamiliar with the topic, and its fair to the other team. if you PF spread and don't send a doc I will find that very irritating.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate any argument that you read.

I am TECH + TRUTH (on substance specifically). You should generally treat me as a tech judge though. I say tech + truth because my threshold for late responses to conceded arguments is very high, but I will evaluate them. My threshold for responses to arguments that I think are patently false is very low, but I will still evaluate those arguments. I think the best arguments are true arguments, since they are the easiest to defend and explain and justify a decision for. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded. You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

Theory is good and I like it. Frivolous theory sucks and I hate it. Theory is good because debaters should be held accountable for bad practices. Stuff like "must respond in second constructive" makes me want to find the nearest brick wall and try to dent it with my head. I will still evaluate it, but it would not bode well for you. You can make reasonability or competing interpretations arguments in front of me to respond to Theory and I'll be receptive to either as long as they are effectively warranted. Because it is PF, and it is much harder to read/respond to progressive arguments effectively in general, I will vote on an RVI if they win that their model of debate is better, not if they just beat back the shell.

Kritiks are super cool but difficult to pull off in PF due to time constraints. I have limited experience writing and evaluating Kritiks, but I will evaluate them to the best of my ability if they are read in front of me. My eval of a Topical K will probably be more accurate than a non-T K.

Fastest way to lose a round in front of me is to read tricks.

I determine speaks based on strategy, and only somewhat on speaking ability. I think that persuasion is a key part of both lay and tech debate so I would like to see something other than a monotone presentation.

You should be able to pull up called-for evidence very quickly. I will find it very weird if you can't.

Please for the love of god signpost PLEASE

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" also dont read defense on ur own case

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too. probably not on a panel tho

if im vibing with an arg then you'll probably be able to tell. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

I will disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians on big stage."

Have fun!

Dakota Champagne Lambda CS

Sebastian Dunbar Epsilon DMN

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 4:07 AM PDT

******EXTEND FULL ARGUMENTS******DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING******HAVE FUN******

^the holy trinity

Hey! My name is Seb and I love debate.

My pf debate judging preferences

I flow, but above all else I want to be persuaded
I like when speeches are filled with jokes, analogies, and metaphors
I dislike roadmaps, you can just tell me where you are starting and signpost the rest
I like when rounds move quickly and debaters speak slowly
I think the simplest strategy is usually the best strategy
I dislike card dumping strategies, and more broadly prefer depth to breadth

My pf debate philosophies

I think that:

Paraphrasing is good
Disclosure is a bad norm
Theory should only be used when necessary
Non topical k’s are unfair
I should only flow what I hear

My pf debate advice

1. Collapse on your most important argument. If you are winning your entire case, you have no reason to go for all of your offense in Final Focus- extend the best offense you have, because it'll outweigh the rest of your case anyways. If you're getting up in FF and telling me that there are four voters in the round, you are doing it wrong.

2. Have a consistent narrative throughout the round. Everything that you go for in your Final Focus needs to have been in your Summary, and you cannot introduce new arguments after Rebuttal. I should be able to flow your arguments from Constructive all the way to FF.

3. Treat your opponents with respect. Debate has a tendency to get heated, which is perfectly fine. However, being in the zone is not an excuse to be rude in CX or any other part of the round. Please be courteous and chill when speaking to one another, even if it means that you wont have time to get to that one GaMe ChAnGiNg crossfire question you have.

4. Debate in the style that you are the most comfortable with. I am familiar with everything from very traditional to very technical pf. While my judging philosophy is on the technical side, every round can be won with smart debating, no matter what style that is. Don't feel the need to go fast or use more debate jargon just to win my ballot.

5. Signpost Signpost Signpost. I should be told exactly where the arguments you are making need to be flowed. If there was an argument that you thought won you the round but I don't have it on my flow, you probably didn't signpost it well and I had no idea where to put it. Bad signposting is the #1 cause of debate judge migraines.

6. Do comparative and meta-weighing. Claiming that you "win on magnitude because your impact is 3 million lives" or that you "win on probability because it's gonna happen" is bad weighing. Comparative weighing is making a weighing analysis directly between your impact and your opponents' impact. Meta weighing is comparing two different weighing mechanisms against each other (like saying why probability is more important than scope, etc.). Using these methods to weigh your impacts properly will go a long way.

7. Be Personable! At its core, debate is a game of persuasion. To me, the best debaters are always smiling, engaged, friendly, and working to simplify the round the best they can. Charisma and critical thinking are the most portable skills that you develop in this activity, and they are the fundamental to both your performance in round and interactions outside of debate.

Zayne El-Kaissi Kappa EH 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 3:51 PM CDT

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

Gabriel Grodan Kappa GG 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat July 10, 2021 at 6:30 AM EDT

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT. You can't win an argument if you don't extend it. If you don't extend your argument, it is like there is terminal defense on it. Frontlining your argument and then failing to extend it is a waste of time. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT.

TLDR: Think of me like a traditional PF judge/someone who has been coaching for 20 years. Quality>Quantity. Logic>Evidence

Experience: I debated in Public Forum for Valley International Prep. I quartered at the TOC

How I evaluate rounds: Your primary concern should be winning and extending your argument. That is a prerequisite to any impact weighing you want me to consider. Generally, I think most of the impact weighing teams do is fairly elementary and ineffective. I don't need you to tell me you outweigh on scope because you affect more people. I think link ins, short circuits, and pre recs are far more valuable than impact weighing.

Be Clear and Comparative: Want to make my decision easy? Implicate your responses. Don't assume I know if defense is mitigatory or terminal. Tell me, "This functions as terminal defense to my opponents case because..." Do comparative analysis. If you and your opponent read opposing evidence, tell me why to prefer yours. Is the author more credible? Is the study more recent or more comprehensive of all factors? If you outweigh on scope and your opponent outweighs on magnitude, tell me why scope matters more.

Want to make my decision really easy? Tell a clear story. If you have the stronger narrative, I’ll probably find a way to vote for you in close rounds that could go either way. PF is fundamentally a persuasion event - if you convince me your side is true, you’ll probably win the round.

Technical stuff:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline ALL turns and terminal defense on the argument they are going for. Defense isn't sticky. Any defense that you're going to read in final focus should be in summary.

Overviews?

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense (oUr tHiRd cOnTeNtIoN iS...)

Don't read it. I won't vote on it. I prefer actual clash to random DAs.

2) An overall response to their case.

Good idea

3) Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA.

Speed: Keep it under 225 WPM. Quality>Quantity

I’m logic >>>>>> evidence. You can win my ballot without reading a single card. I care about ideas, not authors. I will not evaluate a card without a warrant. The warrant can be either in the card or made analytically by you. Only evidence > logic if both teams have rock solid logic but one has evidence.

I’m tech > truth with one caveat - the stupider an argument gets, the lower my response threshold gets. That said, a response has to exist.

Take your opponents at their highest ground. Don't lie to me. If they responded to your argument, don't say that they conceded it. If they read a warrant or an impact, don't tell me that they didn't. That's lazy, disingenuous, and bad debating. You'll do a lot better by saying, "Even if you believe everything my opponents said, we STILL win the round," and then weighing your arguments against the best iteration of theirs.

Theory? Sure. Paragraph theory is fine. I don't need it in shell form. If you call for evidence and it's really miscut, I WILL vote on an evidence ethics shell. I default to RVIs and I think teams should be able to read reasonability responses.

Ks? Ehhh. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well.

Speaker Points: I will give speaker points based on your rhetorical appeal. Usually there are two different speaking styles that work pretty well. You can go the dominant route and be loud and confident. Think, "THE ROUND IS OVER." Or you can go the calm, quieter, confident route. Think, "The round breaks down pretty simply." Give me some alliteration or a catchy phrase and you'll probably get a 30. I probably won't give anyone below a 28 unless you explicitly do something I say not to do in my paradigm or say something problematic/offensive

Other Things:

1. I will disclose no matter what... even if it's against tournament rules (just don't tell on me). My least favorite thing as a debater was not getting any feedback or knowing the results of a round.

2. Please come to the round preflowed. If both debaters are in round, and you're wasting time preflowing, I'll take a speaker point off.

3. I'll only call for evidence if there is debate about what the evidence says.

4. I'll try to nod if I like/agree with what you're saying and frown if I don't. As a debater, the facial expressions of judges always helped me know what to go for and what to drop. I also just think that generally, reading the way people are responding to what you are saying and making adjustments when necessary is a valuable life skill, so I will help you do that.

5. Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with or have questions about my decision. I think post-rounding will help you improve/understand my decision better and will make me a better judge.

If you disagree with any of these philosophies and believe I should be judging the round differently, tell me in a speech and warrant it. I'm open to creativity. For example, if you think that I should be evidence > logic or think I should not require frontlining in second rebuttal, and your reasoning is sound (and not well responded-to), I'll oblige

Mac Hays Kappa EH 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 28, 2023 at 10:20 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Callan Hazeldine Lambda HB

Tyler Katz Hire 8 rounds

ezra kohrman Hire 8 rounds None

Jackson Loze Hire 8 rounds

Elisa McCartin Epsilon DMN

Last changed on Sat September 18, 2021 at 1:50 PM EDT

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

John Nahas Epsilon DMN

Last changed on Thu July 27, 2023 at 3:30 PM EDT

TLDR: Tech > Truth

********* This is in my paradigm but ill add it again because I dont want you to lose on some goofy technicality.... you need to fully extend your arguments. You cant just frontline and move on. After frontlining you have to extend your argument. *********

| PLEASE LINE BY LINE | PRETTY PLEASE SIGNPOST | EXTEND FULL ARGS | SUMMARY TO FF CONSISTENCY | I WILL VOTE ON ANY ARG THAT IS NOT EXCLUSIONARY |

come to the round already preflowed & coinflip done unless you have a paradigm question

Pretty standard, here are some general things to do:

1. if its in final focus its in summary

2. frontline offense in second rebuttal. I won't make you but it's advantageous because of the next thing.

3. 1st speaking team, if the 2nd speaking team doesnt frontline defense/turns, please listen to me on this... defense can go straight to final focus. If a turn is dropped by them, and its not in summary, you can still extend it into ff as defense (if it's truly a turn its prolly terminal defense). As such, assuming 2nd speaking doesnt FL, 1st summary should be almost purely offense. If they do FL, then you gotta have the defense in first summary.

4. Extend the entirety of an argument. Have the whole story in there, don't assume parts of the argument even if they drop it. If they drop it, you can be quicker on the extensions that are predicated on concessions, but still do them (re-tell the warrants). Although itll prolly help, i wont force you to extend author names as long as you properly signpost and extend your arguments in totality.

5. There are two ways i can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isnt needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Please don't be lazy and do actual comparative analysis, and please even justify why i should prefer your weighing over theirs. I'm also inclined to reward good internal link debate. With that (and the following is bolded for a reason) PLEASE DO NOT USE "WEIGHING" AS AN EXCUSE TO READ NEW LINK TURNS. Idk what happened to the circuit but this got increasingly prevalent last year, and is even more prevalent, from what i can tell, this year. Thanks.

6. Speed: Please send a speech doc if its either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it wont help you when i get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS.

7. DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of yall accidentally do this anyways cause people dont read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. If the 'DA' is a big turn that truly applies to their argument, dope. If your rebuttal is "iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn tHrEe Is..." then please abstain. I already said im cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in the first constructive.

8. Theory: yuh. I default to RVI unless told otherwise. If reading theory, structure it properly. If responding to theory/youre reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isnt an excuse to undercover it though. Also if youre concerned i (again) default to RVI .... keep this in mind ig.

9. Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, Ive read basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I wont change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. I just say I prefer util cause im less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.

10. Speaks are subjective. if you read pure cards ill definitely give a bump

11. CX: i dont listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

*Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with the decision*

email: johnjjjn@gmail.com

Ronak Pai Hire 8 rounds

Conrad Palor Lambda PS

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:02 AM MDT

Background

***Please add me to the email chain. My email is conradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tab as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments so I've summarized some thoughts below.

DAs

- Fine with most DAs. If reading any politics DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic Link evidence.

- I’m fine with Kritikal affirmatives, however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer Affs that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise. I also am generally persuaded by the argument that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a methods debate, but am open to arguments otherwise.

CPs

- I’m fine with most counter plans although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

- I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

- I default to perms are test of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and default to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

- I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

- I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

- I take a tabula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author last name and year in the back half of the ro und. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

- In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

- Please collapse

- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

- Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clear if I can't flow what you are saying

- Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedurals

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

- I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

- I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note, I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

Siva Sambasivam Lambda PS

Last changed on Sun January 22, 2023 at 12:52 PM PDT

Siva Sambasivam

<< if you can explain the meaning of the two coins above, I'll start your speaks at a 29 (unless u do smth problematic in round) >>

siva.m.sambasivam@gmail.com

Saratoga High '20; started circuit debate my junior year - I qualified to TOC, NCFL, NSDAs, and California States, and reached the TOC autoqual level at both NCFLs and Nats, my junior and senior year respectively. I now privately coach a few teams around the circuit, and run the Delta Debate Academy. My teams have won TOC and t5'd NSDA Nats, so I should be able to keep up with whatever type of panel you have.

Debate is a game, play to win.

Debate is an educational activity, play fair.

TLDR: Tech > Truth, please warrant args and do comparative analysis, I’ll vote for anything. I can handle pretty much whatever you wanna throw at me, I think I'm a pretty good judge. except if you are Zach Yusaf - only two times I've ever squirreled were against him, so if you're hitting Hackley, free ballot for you :))

Most importantly, I appreciate debaters that are technically sound, but debate without ignoring the persuasive element of the activity - i.e. don't spam args in the back-half knowing that I'll be ABLE to sort through the flow, because I'd rather have my decision be simple.

Also, please make the round pleasant - nothing I hate more than spending time on a weekend watching kids get mad at each other. It's just debate; not that deep.

Standing Conflicts: F.C. B.A.L.L. Prep Group (Foothill AD, Centennial BN, Brentwood HM, Bergen KC, Anderson BC, La Salle GN, Lynbrook RG) + Seven Lakes LW

For 2021 TOC:

You should be disclosed at TOC - speaks boost if you do. That said, my threshold for any theory (disclosure or paraphrase) is super high here, because I really don't want to drop a team at TOC on theory.
Getting a 29+ from me at this tournament is super easy: 1. don't take more than 1:30 to pull up any given card your opponent calls for, 2. don't steal prep (I know this one is tough for PF teams), 3. don't interrupt someone in cross.
For online debate: Please send docs for case and rebuttal if you are going fast or reading something that's not stock - my zoom/NSDA campus cuts out often. Feel free to turn off export options or unshare me right after, I have no desire to take your prep, I just don't want to mess up a decision because someone cut out.
If y'all are cool with this, let's skip grand cross and take it as 1:30 of prep. Gcx begs people to interrupt each other and bring up new responses or new wEiGHiNg to arguments. You can have it if you want - but know I'll probably be listening to Juice or Cudi rather than the yelling match going on.

------

What has four letters,

Never has five letters,

Occasionally has twelve letters, and

Sometimes has nine letters.

------

Now the juicy stuff:

I will only intervene under two conditions: 1. If a team is skewed out of the round technically or accessibility is compromised. Keep debate safe and fun - read trigger warnings, send docs, etc (more on this below). 2. There is absolutely 0 weighing done - then I'll do my own impact calc because I really don't want to presume.
If you haven't had me before: As a debater, my favorite judges on the circuit were Cale McCrary, Riley Shahar, John Nahas, Cara Day and Conrad Palor - This would have been my ideal 5 judge panel, and a lot of my paradigm is based on theirs, so I'll evaluate rounds most similarly to them.
It's my job to adapt to you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible and feel free to ask paradigm questions before round.
Postround as hard as you feel like. I’ll continue the conversation for as long as you want (even after the tournament), unless I think it’s going in circles.
Second rebuttal must frontline turns and respond to weighing, if you wish to contest them. Otherwise, they are conceded, with full strength of link. Don't try some wand-waving in summary, it's a waste of your time. First summary only needs to respond to arguments that second rebuttal interacted with. (If second rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, you can backline it in first final focus). I'm willing to buy arguments that second rebuttal needs to FL everything.
I will ALWAYS disclose my decision and give an RFD, whether the tournaments bans it or not (pls don't snitch on me). I used to hate it when I didn't get a decision/feedback, especially from flow judges, because it prevented me from making mid-tournament adjustments. I think not getting judges' feedback gives a significant advantage to schools who can have coaches watch the round, and I want to level the playing field. Feel free to message me on facebook during or after the topic if you have any questions or want feedback/advice.
The only time I expect disclosure is if you read a pre-fiat argument with discourse as an impact. If you don't, it's not an auto-L, but disclosing is a way to show me that you are not commodifying my ballot. This also means I'm inclined to buy disclosure theory in this type of situation - I hate people running arguments like these just for ballots. I think it's great if you actually care, though, because debate can be used to bring awareness and force people to research/understand arguments they previously wouldn't have.

-General-

Please extend your link story with warrants in the back half - one exception: if a certain part of your argument is conceded, I don't NEED that part. For example, if you read in case a warrant for nuclear war -> extinction, I don't need that warrant extended in the back-half if it's conceded. Remember, if it is conceded, I don't NEED this, but I'd prefer it. If your entire arg is conceded, I still need at the least the link and impact. Debate is about efficiently and persuasively articulating arguments - if you don't do that in the back-half I'll be hesitant to vote for you, and your speaks will take a hit.
Cool with anyone speaking in cross, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved, ESPECIALLY in rounds with pre-fiat and apriori arguments.
Please send a speech doc if it's either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. As my old coach would say: I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it won't help you when I get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS. I think speed is good for the activity, just try your best not to be exclusionary.
Speaker Point boost for disclosing - I think disclosing is good but I also have a very high threshold for disclosure theory and paraphrase theory because I don't believe teams should be *forced* to disclose. That said, I do believe it is a good practice and it does put you at a disadvantage, so let me know before constructive that you disclose, and I'll add 1 pt to speaks.
TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
For the second speaking team, no new final focus analysis is allowed unless it is responsive to new first final focus arguments.
If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of y’all accidentally do this anyway cause people don’t read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. However, let’s make sure these are all warranted and implicated. Remember, warrants make arguments, implications make responses. Also don't just read disads, sprinkle in some analytics. Like, if your rebuttal is “oN ThEiR CaSe - iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn FoUr Is..." then please abstain. I already said I’m cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in constructive. Let's make rebuttal somewhat responsive.
Hidden arguments are fine as long as they have warrants.
Summary - this is BY FAR the most important speech in the round. I know other judges are willing to do this, even some of the best, but I will not vote for a team with a second speaker that ghost extends stuff into final focus. I won’t do that. Please extend your arguments well in summary. I also find the warrants for defense and turns go away by summary for a lot of teams - my rule about not voting for unwarranted arguments still applies to these. Even if you are winning 5 pieces of conceded terminal defense, if a warrant isn't extended, then I won't buy any of the defense.
sTrEnGtH oF LiNk meta weighing is the new "clarity of impact". I won't vote for it absent a very well developed warrant. Even if you do warrant it, I think it's stupid. This is pretty much a "trick" read by techy teams to skew another team out of the round. If someone reads it on you - here are 4 responses: 1. It destroys education because it encourages people to avoid impact calculus, which is key to real-world policymaking, 2. It also encourages people to extend tons of blippy defense through ink because frontlines are rarely terminal, as opposed to interacting with arguments, which is key to in-depth education, and 3. It discourages warranted link comparison, like historical precedent or uniqueness comparison, which is more applicable to the real world, and 4. If you win your argument, you also have 100 percent strength of link. Read these 4 responses and it'll probably take out the SoL metaweighing, if not serve as an independent reason to drop your opponents for setting bad norms (if you make this implication, obviously). I would absolutely love a team to drop if you win any of these. However, if you don't read these responses, I won't have any sympathy for you, because you should be reading paradigms before round.

-Weighing-

There are two ways I can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isn’t needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. With that:

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH. Comparative and INTERACTIVE weighing specifically.

Carded weighing and framing are great. Meta weighing is awesome. Link comparison is even better.

Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Do impact calc, and actually responsive impact calc (not just scope, magnitude, reversibility, timeframe, etc). While I do appreciate this traditional weighing, I would obviously prefer interactive and comparative analysis - i.e. link-ins, pre-reqs, short-circuits. I'm inclined to reward good internal link debate.
Just a piece of advice: disguise link turns here (i.e. if you are winning an Econ argument and you’ve conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war and why it outweighs on probability for example). This is also a great way to get back in the round if you drop something big. But also don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” - there’s a difference and I’ll catch it.
Weighing that is not responded to in the next speech is conceded - that doesn’t mean you can’t do more analysis on it (i.e. linking into that weighing or reading a pre-req) but if the actual warrant on any weighing is dropped, it is conceded.
"Probability" is not weighing on the impact level. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything you say is "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal. The only time that I’ll evaluate probability weighing is if it’s new comparative analysis done on the link level between multiple arguments that could not have come in rebuttal.
Clarity of impact is not weighing unless you warrant why it is weighing (and there are ways to do this, ask me in round if you want) - but just saying that you have a number and your opponents don’t is a stupid way to look at debate, and encourages zero interaction and zero comparative analysis - I’m never going to vote on it absent a warrant. If you make a claim that your opponents don’t have impact contextualization, then sure, I’m more likely to vote for you, but pls pls pls don’t let cLaRiTy oF iMpAcT be your “weighing” in the round. Same thing with "uniqueness" weighing.
Do meta weighing and link weighing - if two teams both have links into an impact (which should happen in high-level rounds) - do link comparison. (Strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability). In my career I always HATED when judges intervened with their own thoughts about which warrant or link “made sense” - I’ve had this happen in super late elimination rounds at bid tournaments. If I’m in this scenario I will 100 percent not intervene - it is your fault for not giving me reasons for why your warrant is better even if everyone can agree it “makes more sense” - So, if everyone has extended warrants into the same argument and there is no terminal defense from either side, I’ll default to (in order):
- Which argument has less mitigatory defense (Strength of Link)
- If there's any empirics read on the argument
- Whoever is winning the uniqueness picture (since that makes it more likely that your link has a larger magnitude and greater SoL)
- I’ll prefer a carded link over an analytical link turn
- Remember, these are all easy ways to compare links, along with evidence comparison, that should be said in round, but if nobody says anything, this is how I’ll evaluate competing links.

-Theory-

TLDR: Default RVIs and reasonability, don't skew teams out of round with this

I really hate teams being exclusionary with theory but here are my bright lines so there is something that is concrete -

If a team is qualified to the GOLD TOC, they should be able to handle theory shells.
If you are at a Round Robin, the same goes.
If you are one round past the bid level at a tournament (i.e. sems at a quarters bid) go for it.
Otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't read theory, but if you must: go slow, no jargon, and paragraph form.

If reading theory against a team that can handle it structure it properly and go as fast as you want. I’m cool with meta-theory. Do weighing between the shells.
As a side note, if I’m on a panel, please only read your shell if all the judges can handle it. I hate teams reading theory and then getting the benefit of doubt from the judges that don’t know what they are doing. This also means I’m inclined to vote on a shell saying you can only read theory if judges all expressly say they can evaluate it.
I default to RVIs unless told otherwise. Also, because theory is not a common argument, I default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. I will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was. I'm more than down to default competing interps, but please (1) explain what they are for your opponents and (2) give me a WARRANT as to why.
THIS is IMPORTANT - If you read no RVI’s - I do NOT believe winning no RVIs turn your shell into no-risk offense. I've heard from people that this is a hot button issue in policy as well right now, and because theory is still relatively new to PF, norms for theory debates are still being set. My stance on this is pretty simple - I've had theory debates (especially back when I didn't understand theory as well) where the warrants for an RVI never actually held up to what the judges considered an "RVI". For example:
- I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.
- (Chilling effect could be responsive, but you need to explain why) You can also read defense to your own shell/standards to get out of it, I think conditionality is fine.

Basically, theory is always more exclusionary than substance, so if we use jargon, let's not conflate what that jargon means.

If responding to theory/you’re reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isn't an excuse to undercover it though.

-Tricks/K’s-

Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read and debated basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I won't change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. Once again, if you are hitting a team that doesn't understand it, please be extra slow. I just say I prefer util because I'm less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.
I’m definitely chill with forms of epistemological/deontological weighing, I think these aren't read well by teams and are often underutilized.
Tricks - just don't. If you are thinking about reading tricks with me in the back, you'll probably win substance anyway, so just do that, please. If you REALLY want to, tell your opponents 30 minutes before the round, and disclose the tricks if they ask.

-Speaks-

Speaks are subjective - If you are funny, chill and disclose - you’ll prolly get good speaks.
To give you a gauge on what I like - My favorite debaters stylistically were Matt Salah, Max Wu, Gabe Grodan, and Ezra Khorman.
Be calm and slow, or dominant and assertive, I don't care - I'm happy to give great speaks to both if you execute properly.
I know I have implicit biases, so I’ll do my best to counteract them while giving speaks.
30 speaks shell: Please don't read this. I think it’s read by predominately male teams and it further hurts womxn, gm’s, and minorities in the activity. As I said, I’ll try to prevent any action on my implicit biases but I won’t vote for this argument, because I do think this fosters exclusionary practices.

-Other-

Formal clothes are stupid - pull up in whatever you want. Make the round chill.

CX: I don’t listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

I don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

-Two quick things-

I know you want to win and debate can get super heated and competitive. Trust me, I was never known for being nice in round. But at the end of the day, even if you can’t see it now, you are going to value this activity for the connections you’ve made and the people you meet, not for the nice trophy you get with a horse on top of it. Instead of making enemies, try to be chill and create friendships with the people you debate.

I know lots of schools don’t have many resources or coaching. If you are in this boat - feel free to ask me for help/advice after round, or even after the tournament. I dealt with this for a while and I know, it sucks. We’ll never fully fix the inequities in debate but the least that I can do is try my best. :)

If you’ve gotten this far in my paradigm, I have quite a bit of respect for you. I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate, so I love people that read paradigms in their entirety. Let me know that you made it here before round, just pm me in the zoom chat, and you'll get a speaks boost.

Adhit Sankaran Lambda CS

Arunabh Sarkar Lambda BS

RJ Shah Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 4:36 PM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

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

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

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

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

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

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

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

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

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

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

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

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

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

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

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

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

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

Daniel Timor Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 21, 2024 at 3:11 PM EDT

TL;DR: Convince me of a story, tell me why it's true, treat me like a smart baby.

email me evidence at dtimor@emory.edu

About Me: I have a solid speech background but a more solid debate background from competing at Valley International Prep in local circuit Parli for my first two years and national circuit PF for my last two (the T in VIP GT). Quartered at the TOC in 2019 and got 11th at NSDA in 2020.

How to Win the Round: I'll break it down for you.

Framing: This is the top layer of the round. It's basically any debate on what is the most important argument in the round (i.e. weighing or role of the ballot). If an impact is effectively argued to be the most important in the round I'll consider it first, and whatever team best links into this impact will win the round. Make your impact the most important in the round.

Impact Terminalization: Make your impact clear, if I don't know what your impact is i'm gonna have a lot of trouble voting for it. Usually this means a specific scenario with numbers to contextualize what it means. Give me either a number or a very VERY clear image of what I'm voting for.

Links: I need to know how your impact happens, starting from the implementation of the resolution all the way to your terminalization. Tell me the chain of events that follows after I vote aff or neg. Try not to be convoluted, simple intuitive link chains are the easiest thing for me to vote on.

CONSISTENT THEMES THAT WILL HELP YOU WIN THE ROUND:

Narrative: Tell me a story, i want to vote for a good story both consciously and subconsciously. This is a great practice to adopt because it works well on all types of judges. Simply put, people like stories so tell a good one.

Warrants: I'll keep this short, without warrants you won't win. Every claim you make needs to come with an explanation as to WHY it's true. If i can't answer the question "Why is this true" for every step of your link chain, it will be incredibly difficult for me to vote for your argument.

Summary FF Synchronization: In most rounds, summary wins the round and FF explains why you won. That means that anything in FF MUST be in summary, no questions about it. I don't care if they dropped defense from rebuttal. If it was important enough to be in FF and matters that much to my decision, it would've been in summary, if it wasn't that's on you, get creative with what the summary DID extend.

Tech Stuff:

1. Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal.

2. Overviews are fine but they have to actually interact with your opponents arguments. My favorite overview is one that uses your in case arguments and contextualizes and weighs them to make the entire round center around that argument.

3. I like to act like I know theory well, but I'm a normal PF kid so like, I'll evaluate it like a normal argument. This doesn't mean don't read theory, just don't expect me to know all the ins and outs of the rules of theory. At the end of the day, if you're debating the shells well and are following the rules i outlined above to win my ballot you should have no problem winning the round on a theory shell. None of this should dissuade you from calling out abuse, real abuse ruins debate and should definitely be called out and voted against if you win the shell AND if you do a good job explaining the abuse I'll vote off of paragraph theory. *FYI, I think paraphrasing is good and disclosure is bad*

4. Ks are fine, but like I said earlier, don't expect me to be a pro at evaluating them. I've read like, one ever, so do with that what you will. If you read a K you increase the probability that I vote incorrectly because I'm simply less experienced with that form of debate, nonetheless if you clearly won I should be able to see that.

5. This one's big: saying a tagline is not an extension. Tell me the argument AGAIN.

Other Things:

I give speaker points based on how well you speak (hence the name SPEAKer points), if you have a problem with that let me know in speech.

mostly stolen from my partner:

Speed: Keep it under 270 WPM. Quality>Quantity

(Stolen from Callan Hazeldine (Stolen from Danny Cigale)) I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes up the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counter intuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.

I will disclose no matter what... even if it's against tournament rules (just don't tell on me). My least favorite thing as a debater was not getting any feedback or knowing the results of a round.

I'll only call for evidence if there is debate about what the evidence says or if you tell me to for a good reason.

Feel free to post-round me if you disagree with or have questions about my decision. I think post-rounding will help you improve/understand my decision better and will make me a better judge.

Roshni Varma Epsilon KV

Login to Tabroom

Delta Debate Academy Summer Tournament

2020 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges