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

He/Him

Email: kunalchugh555@gmail.com

Phone #: 5632130456

I debated in High School for 4 years (3.5 PF, 0.5 Congress).

I debated for Hempstead High School located in Dubuque, Iowa.

PF

I broke at the NSDA national tournament, went to NDF, and broke at a couple TOC bid tournaments.

Spreading bad in PF.

Weighing good in PF (starting in summary).

No sticky defense.

Tech>Truth Generally.

I want to see warranted rebuttals with good analytics. No blippy responses/card dumps.

Please extend case in summary (after collapsing hopefully).

***For timing, you have a 10 second grace period. After that, I stop flowing.

***I don't do presumption voting

Speaker Points

Everyone starts at a 30, I take points away/add points depending on how you speak in the round.

Cross ex can either increase your speaks greatly, not have any effect on your speaks, or decrease your speaks greatly. [Cross-Ex arguments should be brought up in speeches, otherwise, I don't evaluate cross]

Progressive Args

Not a fan of progressive args except for theory.

If running theory, warrant and explain in well. I have run and encountered theory multiple times and I feel like its usually good for the activity.

Good Luck!

---------

Congress

Here is how your rank will be determined in Congress:

70% of your rank will be based on how well you spoke during your speech (including its content).

15% of your rank will be based on how well you responded during your questioning time.

15% of your rank will be based on how much you participated in the congress.

Good Luck!

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

Hi I'm Kaps (he/him). I debated at BASIS Independent Silicon Valley

NOTES FOR MSTOC

Speaks will start at a 29, tricks debates at a 28.7.

Shortcuts

Debaters should not feel the need to change the way they debate to fit my perceived tastes, to be honest, I'd prefer a well-executed policy round to an irresolvable tricks debate.

Debates should also not change the way they debate in response to their opponent's perceived skill (you don't need to debate trad/slow down for trad debaters at a circuit tournament)

1 - Theory/T, K (Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, Afropessimism, Racial Capitalism, Disability, Semiocapitalism, Psychoanalysis, Queer Pessimism), Phil (Kant, Prag, Levinas, Contracts)

2 - Policy, K (Baudrillard, Deleuze, Dark Deleuze, Pomo, Moten, Black Nihilism, IR Ks), Phil (Anything not above)

3 - Strike - Tricks

I will not flow off the doc or backflow, and am perfectly willing to give an RFD along the lines of (I didn't catch the unclear 2nr/2ar so I vote aff/neg). I consider myself pretty good at flowing, so being too fast/unclear for me to flow you is definitely your bad. I'll yell clear 3 times before giving up, and will tank speaks for awful spreading.

If I believe an analytical argument to not be extemped with a debater claiming that it is in the 1ac/1nc to avoid sending analytics (e.g. entire 1ncs, overview arguments, etc.). I will tank speaks.

I start speaks at 28.5. Tricks debates start at a 28.

Tricks

Please collapse, don't make the round messy. Good tricks debates are hard to execute and involve solid collapsing, strategic vision, and judge instruction. Unless you believe you are capable of that, do not read these.

If I don't catch something, I'm not voting on it.

Theory

I default drop the debater, no RVIs, competing interps on shells, but believe that shells without paradigm issues are like disads without terminal impacts, and should not be evaluated. I can be persuaded against any of those paradigm issues.

I default T > Theory, 1NC Theory > 1AR Theory, and Theory > K absent weighing arguments, but you won't be happy with your speaks if the round comes down to those defaults

Bad Shells have a lower threshold for response, but that threshold is not at 0. For example, reading only defensive arguments against a shell and conceding competing interps probably loses you the debate no matter how silly the shell is.

Messy theory debates that force judge intervention on my part will be punished with low speaks, smart theory debates, implications, weighing arguments, strategic concessions, etc will be rewarded with higher speaks.

I will not vote off theory arguments that police the romantic status of debaters, or any other personal characteristic. My ballot is not a referendum on debaters' personal decisions, and genuine safety issues should be taken up with tab, not punished with losses.

Reasonability arguments must be made with a brightline (e.g. brightline of in-round abuse, brightline of solvency advocate, etc.) otherwise they probably link hard to judge intervention.

T Framework debates can be particularly interesting. Having debated both sides of them, I have an appreciation for arguments that discuss debate's impact on subjectivity, the importance of discussing topics outside of the resolutional scope, and how defending the resolution is epistemelogically bankrupt. However, I also can understand that the competitive nature of debate implicates the importance of a topical stasis point, and that stasis point promotes the cultivation of portable skills. Weighing arguments, smart contextualizations and implications, TVAs, etc. make these debates interesting and more easily resolvable.

In a perfectly equal round, here's how I evaluate common theory arguments:

Infinite Condo Good

PICs Good

Process CPs Good

New Affs Good

Consult CPs Good

Vague Alts Good

Nebel T Bad

T FW True

K

I have a guilty pleasure for insanely well-executed K debates, given how hard it is to do in LD.

Large overviews filled with buzzwords are not persuasive to me and only waste time and force me to do more work and intervention. K debaters should focus more on the LBL, answering aff scenarios with their alt, links, and ToP, and in some cases, win defense to the aff scenario.

The less specific the link argument, the more likely I am to buy the Permutation or the no-link. The more contextual the link arguments, the more likely I am to reject the permutation and buy what is likely to be an overhyped K impact.

Kicking the alt, and going for framework + links is underutilized, especially vs phil affs. Executing this correctly will lead to me appreciating you and increasing your speaks.

Interesting strategies such as using the alt to generate defense to a case, and winning an impact turn, if executed correctly, will also lead to me appreciating you and increasing speaks.

Clash debates are particularly interesting to me - in a vaccum affs should probably be able to weigh their case, but framework implicates which impacts are important. Policy debaters vs the K should utilize the permutation + link turn, especially in reform vs revolution debates where it becomes easy to problematize alt solvency/efficacy in comparison to the aff.

K v K debates should come down to the perm 99% of the time. These rounds can get complicated and dense quickly, veering away from large overview arguments and to specific examples, explaining how your theory of power explains theirs probably wins you this debate.

K affs should not be sketchy about their topicality. Embrace whether or not you are topical and be ready with a robust defense of what the aff does, why its good, and why the ballot is necessary. Or...just be topical and explain why state action is reconcilable with your theory of power.

Policy

This is pretty much the bread and butter of debate - to decide the round I'll be answering the following questions with my RFD: Does the risk of the case outweigh the risk of the disad? / Doesa risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit?

Most counterplan theory arguments are better framed as competition arguments against a counterplan. I'd strongly suggest that anyone reading Consult CPs, Process CPs, PICs, etc. bad reframe their arguments as a permutation + X type of competition is bad, as these arguments are usually more persuasive.

I won't assign zero risk of an argument unless it's an outdated politics disad or straight up wrong in any other way.

Phil

Weigh between different framework justifications in rebuttal speeches, otherwise these rounds become irresolvable fast.

I like to think I'm familiar with most of the phil read in debate, but that doesn't preclude good explanation and judge instruction.

Please collapse, these debates get messy.

Util vs Phil debates:

1. Excluding consequences with a syllogism or claiming your framework precludes the evaluation of consequences >>> calc indicts

2. You must win consequences matter to get access to extinction outweighs

3. Half of the cards read in these debates mean nothing, just read strong analytic arguments.

Don't be shifty about skep triggers/indexicals in cross.

Lay

Win a framework, win offense under the framework.

I treat lay rounds like slow DA/Case rounds, grandstanding is less important to me than winning arguments on the flow.

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

she/her

Hey! I'm a rising senior at Myers Park, and I've been debating PF for three years on the national and local circuit. Debate is absolutely my favorite activity, and it makes me happy. Overall, I hope you enjoy the round/have fun.

Include me in the email chain! mirandawwilson@gmail.com

If you'd rather have the round on Zoom, I have unlimited and can send an invite.

My preferences:

-I will vote off the flow, but I have to buy your argument. For example, if you extend something all the way into final but it's not warranted/explained I won't vote off of it. Rather than "tech over truth" or "truth over tech", I'm more of a tech should equal truth (if that makes sense?).

-The flow is important to me but so is narrative. When determining speaks, I will look at how effectively you combined evidence with rhetoric.

-I can handle speed, but do not spread.

-Please frontline in second rebuttal!

-I will not flow disads in second rebuttal. Rebuttal is not the time to add in a third contention or argument, it is a time for defense.

-The same cards/arguments/weighing need to be extended in both summary and final focus. Please give me a clear weighing mechanism and explain it! It will make my job much easier.

-Signpost!!!!!!!!!

-I find historical precedent extremely important and love when it's argued in round. I also love framework debates; I think good framework can be used really effectively (same thing as above though, I have to buy it).

-I love unique arguments!! However, I do not have much experience with theory, and I don't think PF is necessarily the place for it. I'm willing to hear it, but I can't promise you'll be happy with how I evaluate it.

-Please don't misinterpret evidence. I'm begging you. There are so many articles out there. Find a piece of evidence that says what you want it to say instead of misconstruing. Don't be surprised if I call for evidence at the end of a round, especially if it gets indicted.

-To extend evidence you don't necessarily have to extend the citation, just make sure the content of the card stays consistent.

-I hate when arguments get muddled. If you don't have a good response, then just try to outweigh: don't muddle.

-I will disclose and give an RFD if both teams want/the tournament allows.

Miscellaneous:

-Be respectful. I have dealt with a lot of sexism during my time in debate, and if you are condescending in anyway I will dock your speaks. Any racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments and you will automatically lose.

-If you make me laugh, have clever contention names, or somehow make a relevant Harry Potter reference I'll give you an extra speaker point.

-I don't mind if you skip grand cross because it's awkward if no one has any questions. I won't flow first and second cross, but I will consider it for speaks, etc.

-If your opponent didn't drop an argument, then don't say they dropped it. Also, don't extend through ink.

-Feel free to ask any questions after the round!

-Have fun:)

Contact: colewoody1022@gmail.com

P.S. Most of this Paradigm is taken from my teammate, Katherine Yue

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

I can flow your overall case and round, as long as you aren't spreading. Keep in mind that I may miss something, so never assume I'll make a connection that should've been made by either you or your partner in the round. For example, if your opponent concedes a response or drops an argument, let me know so I can make certain I have that written down, if you don't then it's a 50/50 on something that could potentially win you a round.

Constructive

-I'll evaluate any argument/response well explained the first time it is brought up and extended & weighed later on.

-Please don't spread. You can send a speech doc if you plan on it but I'll probably drop your speaks and not get half of it because flowing off a document kind of ruins the whole speech aspect of debate (but I'll try my best).

Crossfire

-I don't flow cross, but it can affect your speaks. Don't be overly aggressive, if you have to cut someone off do it nicely. Don't try and force your opponents into conceding something here. If an important point is brought up, bring it up in a speech, because I won't do it for you.

-Cross isn't a time to ask for evidence, do that during prep not CX.

-Don't leave empty space within cross, if your opponent doesn't have a question, then you should be prepared to continue poking holes in their case, don't waste what little time you have.

-Don't be afraid to have fun during cross, if you want to make jokes and laugh then go ahead, this time is meant to help you not me

Rebuttal

-Everything said in 1st rebuttal must be responded to in the following speech (2nd rebuttal) or I consider it conceded. Don't try to respond later/access something that was attacked. If your opponent drops attacks, tell me and extend it!

-Interact with your opponent's arguments directly! Everyone reads generic blocks, but if your responses interact directly with their evidence/specific link chain, I'll bump your speaks. I think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

Summary

-You should collapse! Extend offense & defense, weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttal.

-Don't bring up new things here unless front lining.

-Extend everything you want me to vote on! I'll only look to things said earlier in the round if there is nothing left for me to vote off at the end (unlikely).

Final focus

-I really like a review of your points and attacks that still stand, but I primarily want voters and weighing to happen in this speech. Everything extended should be from summary, including weighing.

-This is the most important speech, in my opinion, so make sure to drive through your voters for the round if you want to win.

Weighing

-Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true, and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant.

-Logical weighing (xyz will or won't happen/this is better long-term) is okay, if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing.

-If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

-Do not! weigh on arguments you have no access to.

Progressive arguments

-Since it's PF I'll only evaluate dis-ads and theory shells if a severe violation has occurred (i.e. the opponent discriminated against you on sexuality, race, etc. )

-I will not evaluate theory unless prior consent has been given by either party before the round has started (I need to hear both sides firmly agree, the absence of no doesn't mean yes)

-I prefer substance over everything

-I'm more of a trad judge, so try to keep that in mind when running progressive args

Other

-Please pre-flow before the round! It makes things run a lot faster in the long term.

-Give me the order before speeches (Off-the-clock roadmaps <3).

-I'll try to disclose every round and give an oral rfd (If allowed).

-I won't usually call for cards unless I'm told to or it's heavily weighed on. If a card I call for is misused I'll drop all arguments involving it. Paraphrased cases are okay, but cut and use evidence fairly.

-I firmly believe in tech>truth, so if something is false or you think I need to call for evidence, tell me, because I won't unless you give a valid reason as to why I should.

-Please ask questions/postround if you want, but be nice.

-I'll time every speech/prep but I expect you to as well. 10+ seconds overtime=lower speaks

-Voting for you should be easy, so weigh, extend, refute, do all the things you should in a typical round. If the round gets messy to the point where there is nothing I can vote on, I'll default to the first speaking team.

Speaks

-Everyone's speaks start at 28, I'll drop/raise as the round progresses.

-Follow the paradigm!

-Read content warnings as needed

-Most importantly, be respectful, nice, & overall don't take things too seriously and you'll end with high speaks.

-Please make sure to either find something enjoyable or educational about your round