Tabula Ra$a

i have a lot of experience judging pf, i am a teKKK judge

I have had a negative growth rate in debate. I went 3-3 at tfa $tate freshman year and 2-4 $ophomore year, logiKKKally, i will be 1-5 junior year and 0-6 $enior year. ImpreSSive! Almo$t at the level of $umith Murthy who'$ currently getting $cammed by Anbu.

I will judge anything to varying degree$ of $uKKKceSS; I have not judged a round on a KKK before but I thinKKK I know how to evaluate it!1!!

MaKKKe the round a$ KKKlear a$ you KKKan $o that I KKKan evaluate it without meSSing $omething up

probability>>>everything

warrant metaweighing or lo$e

my jelqhold for re$pon$e$ i$ much higher after $econd KKKonSStructive.

my brother i$ named KKKooper

$peaKKK$ average 12.201710. Thi$ mean ha$ been derived from a $ample of 32972982 from 2901879273978298 round$ that i judged. I KKKan be 95% KKKonfident that the range from [11.928739879 to 12.474680121] KKKapture$ the true mean of my $peaKKKer point$ that i give. Thi$ ha$ been derived from a 1 $ample t interval.

For my preference$- from pa$t round$, i lean neg. Out of 28370287 round$ that i $ampled, i voted neg 1838383 time$, voted aff 1 time, and voted for my$elf for the re$t.

I do not vote on "progreSSive" argument$ becau$e I'm KKKonSServative and a maoist $o we can make it in the image of the NSSDA. If the NSSDA want$ u$ to d$KKKlo$e they would make u$.

Before every $peech, KKKorrectly identify the group leader and a$k for permiSSion from them to KKKommen$e the $peech. $peeKKKer$ will be doKKKed otherwi$e.

Hi All you gooners and goofballs. Welcome to my paradigm......

My name is Cruz, some also call me Crusty Cruz, Leader of the Crust.I also go by BeanboyCruz, which is quite comedic if you ask me.

Strake Jesuit ‘26--GO CRUSADERS!!!

Pronouns: He/Him/Ze/Zer//they/them

[ITS A WORK IN PROGRESS. TAKE A CHILL PILL YOU YOUNGINS]

Feel free to ask any questions, I'll do my best to answer. I can pretty much evaluate anything....YES ANYTHING....Huzzah!

Worlds:

Do what you know how to do and do your best at it :D We're all here to grow and I hope this activity helps us. I hope you have fun and we have productive rounds.

I've never debated World Schools but I've watched a few rounds- treat me as if I have some basic understanding but am not familiar with all the norms.

I'm probably going to evaluate the round from a little more technical point of view but I'm still going to be a lot more "lay" for World Schools.

General:

Give at least 30-35 seconds before each POI.

For MS, 30 sec protected time at the start and end of each speech.

I think the reply speech is the most important speech in the round- It's what I'm going to be looking at first and foremost as my reasons to vote for you.

Postrounding is okay but I will not change my ballot- I think it's educational for you to understand my thought process and holds me accountable as a judge.

Content v Strategy:

Strategy is most likely what's going to decide the round for me, smart responses that help you win a lot cleaner on the flow are going to be my reasons to vote for you. However, I do think the presentation matters in World Schools so it's still a balance of the 2.

Content

I'll boost your speaks for filling up the speech time and keeping the round in order, it makes the round super enjoyable as a judge.

I'll give more leniency on content points in rounds where you learn the topic right before.

Good weighing can easily you the round and will boost your points for strategy and content.

Style:

+1 point if you signpost clearly

Don't yell

-1 point for every extra POI if you spam POI's(no more than 7 POI's a speech)

style points start from 27 going up or down from there depending on how you do.

Being funny will boost your style points, making the round enjoyable makes me happy.

Strategy:

This is where I'll give points based on how you're doing on the "flow" and if you're technically winning arguments- This is most likely where I’ll vote off as well combined with content.

Clever strategies like cases with spikes in them will boost this of course.

Public Forum

Tech > Truth

Send a speech doc before Case and Rebuttal.

Speed is fine, but it needs to be somewhat coherent.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

Prep ends, when you finish compiling the doc.

+.5 Speaks If you’re not in a suit.

You should probably give a Content Warning if your speech is super graphic

Truth breaks clash if no one breaks it for me. ( but break if for me )

Larp

Defense isn’t sticky, 2nd Rebuttal must frontline.

New (not intuitive) implications Second Summary onwards won’t be evaluated.

Implicate what you say.

Turns w/o Uniqueness and Weighing are defense.

Flex Prep is allowed.

Open Cross isn’t.

I like Unique arguments.

I won’t hack on evidence, unless told to check and it’s egregious.

Weighing: Strength of Link isn’t real weighing, probability needs to be super well implicated

Good weighing wins rounds, make it comparative and link weigh please.

Weighing is fine all the way into the 1FF, but speech after can always respond

Weigh as early as possible, like 1st Rebuttal early. Please.

Link-In’s, Short Circuits, prereqs, etc. need timeframe weighing, or else it doesn’t matter (unless it’s like really really intuitive ig).

Speaks:

Speaks start at a 25 going up or down from there- they start high because speaks are really arbitrary.

If you lose when reading Tricks L 15. Cmon bud. So not Sigma.......

Progressive:

You don’t have to extend Theory, Framing, trix, or a K in rebuttal.

Discourse is NOT an impact on anything- You will have to weigh it like crazy cracked or smthn

Framing:

I default Util.

Framework should be read in constructive.

SV should actually be SV, not [x] minority isn’t prioritized often, or util but prioritize [x] minority more.

I can probably understand Phil, but err on over-explanation. Not kant tho

Cost-Benefit Analysis is not a real framework.

Pre-Fiat Frameworks are… stupid

Interesting Frameworks are really cool and underutilized, things like Anthro, Polls etc.

Theory:

I default CI’s> Reasonability, DTD, Text > Spirit, No RVI’s.

^ All of the above can be changed through paradigm issues.

Friv is fine.

I think certain norms are good, but I refuse to hack for them I won’t evaluate Theory incoherent, dumping on a procedural claim is very much so problematic.

Kritiks:

Err on over-explanation.

Understand the authors you read, Please. It’s obvious when you don’t, and I’ll probably dock your speaks for it.

Topicality is a fine response; It needs a definition though.

Kritiks must have REAL Alts- discourse doesn't do anything and I really don't think anything could convince me otherwise.

Trix:

shouldn’t be too complicated/have too many layers.

Honestly there’s no tricks judges in PF so I’ll judge them ????.

They shouldn’t be bracketed inside evidence.

They should be in the doc.

hey im christopher cheng

2057 quizbowl toc winner

20 bids to quizbowl toc

I strongly believe that debate isn't educational enough. Thus as my role as an educator, instead of debating, we will have a quiz bowl tournament if I'm your judge. I will ask quiz-bowl styled questions and whoever gets the most right will win. Speaks are based on how fast you answer the questions.

30 - answered questions very fast

29 -answered questions slightly less fast

28 - answered questions slightly slightly less fast

and so on...

i don't know what this means below but someone told me I have to put this or else I can't judge

-----------

1 -- larp

2 -- k

2 -- tricks

3 -- theory

4 -- phil

In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.

*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*

Debate PF at Strake 2021-2025 - please add me to the doc: guodaniel3@gmail.com

For MSTOC LD:

Do what you do best - go as fast as you want and be respectful, kind, and fun!

Policy - 1

K - 2

Theory/T - 2/3

Phil - 5

Tricks - 5

I debate PF so err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T. Not good for high phil/extremely uncommon K. Please don't overadapt to me if it's a panel - just do what you do best!

PF:

Tech> Truth, go as fast as you want and read whatever you want.

Cleanest link into best weighed offense, but arguments must have coherent extensions - uniqueness, link, impact.

Impact Calc and Backhalf Thoughts: (Stolen from Ishan's Paradigm)

I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your argument. However, arguments don't necessarily start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar (e.g., extinction). If probability weighing becomes new defense, call it out.

Extensions are yes/no. Extend, definitely, but I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. If something is conceded, my threshold drops significantly. Nit-picky details become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.

Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking,link > uniqueness.

By default,I presume neg/con.

Not good for PF K's w/o alts, poor evidence ethics, or any sort of -isms

Add me to email chain - PMHablinski26@mail.strakejesuit.org

If this is for 2024, probably don't read progressive arguments on me unless it is general theory. Otherwise, I evaluate fairly standardly based on the flow.

Tech > Truth to an extent (ie my threshold for responses decreases as your argument gets more farfetched)

Speed - go whatever you want but be clear and DEF send a doc if above 250 (you should probably send one either way)

Substance -

1. I evaluate in a tech manner
2. Framing... prefiat is silly / I'll evaluate most framing arguments tho
3. Second rebuttal should frontline or else the argument is conceded
4. If you don't weigh you'll probably lose the round (strength of link isn't real and probability better be implicated very well)
5. I'll evaluate whatever you give me but make sure to break the clash or else your argument is obv less easy to access

Progressive -

I'll evaluate most shells (think para, disclo, tw, and t) - I'd advise y'all against reading friv theory (if there is genuine abuse like misdisclosure y'all should probably read a shell if comfortable)

IVIs are generally ok if obvious but otherwise prob make it a shell

Evidence challenges are fine - just has to be on true grounds

Try not to read Ks on me - I'll probably screw you

Speaks -

+.5 if you weigh in rebuttal or attack in 2nd constructive

If you bring me food auto 30s unless... (see below)

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, or overly rude I'll give you an L25

Auto 25 speaks if you're silver sumith

Hi I’m Campbell

Do your best :)

Hi! I’m Finney a junior at Strake Jesuit, been doing pf ever since freshman year.

Add me to the email chain: FGHaire25@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tldr: tech>truth, tabula rasa. Read what you want but I can’t guarantee I will be able to understand it. The quickest way to my ballot is good weighing and defense. Fine with speed as long as you send a doc with cut cards and you must go slow on analytics. Defense isn’t sticky. Quality>quantity. The best rounds are ones where I don’t have to think about my decision. In the back half, write my ballot for me. Be very clear with signposting. I prefer a substance debate with good clash but I won't stop you from doing what you want.

Comments and opinions

It is the judge’s job to do their best to adapt to the debaters but with that being said I do feel more confident judging straight topical rounds. That’s what I feel the best at evaluating but I am willing to judge whatever including ks theory and whatever you can come up with.

Every single thing you read or go for needs warranting. The warranting doesn’t have to be true but if there is no warrant then you’re just saying nothing and I will not vote for it. Threshold for warrants goes down if something is fully dropped or the flow is supper messy.

I will always look at the weighing first to see who’s winning that and then look at who’s winning links. I love love love link weighing, meta weighing, uniqueness weighing, and any other weird weighing mechanisms.

The only thing that can be new after summary is weighing. I will evaluate new weighing in second final if it’s the first time weighing is read. If your opponents try to read new defense and call it probability weighing then call them out and I won’t vote on it.

Most probable implementation of the resolution isn’t real. It’s just excuse to read a plan in pf and I will evaluate it if your not called out for it but like…

Pf has really bad evidence ethics. Call out your opponents for terribly miss cut cards and if I think it’s bad enough I will just scratch them from my flow.

Being able to show cut cards quickly is a must. If you hold up the round for over 3 minutes trying to find a card I will doc your speaks.

I’ll flow off a doc if I really need to. I would greatly prefer not to and there’s a decent chance my flow will be a little worse. You also probably don't need to go that fast.

Theory

I have an okay amount of experience with it and know how to evaluate it.

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I can be convinced otherwise. Default yes RVIs.

Ks

Not very much experience tbh but do what you want. If I look confused it’s because I am. Slow down on extensions and over-explain the k if you want me to make the best decision possible.

speaks

Start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy and if you seem nice or funny. If you are spreading at a completely unintelligible speed to the point where it’s almost impossible to prove if u clipped, I will prob drop your speaks. If you do really annoying stuff like read theory on freshman or counter plans in 2nd rebuttal that are just new contentions, I will vote for them sure but expect a low point win.

racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is an auto L and the lowest speaks I can give.

ask questions and post round if you want.

Good luck!

ill down you if you run smth and you dont undertstand it

I will vote on areas of resolved clash rather than resolving clash myself, unless I have to. I am not concerned with speaking. So long as you are clear, I will give speaks based on strategy. I have some experience with progressive debate. I am comfortable with theory, having run it a decent number of times. Friv theory is fine, but if read against novices or teams that clearly don't know how to respond to theory I may drop speaks but will still evaluate it. I'm more uncertain on Ks. Read them if you want and I'll try to evaluate it, but I can't guarantee I will do so correctly.

Collapsing is good. You should not go for multiple contentions unless they are easy to frontline and quick to extend.

Rebuttals can be blippy if you implicate well in the back half. Tech over truth for all responses.

Good weighing gives you a massive advantage if you have any access to your case. Please do link weighing--it is the easiest path to the ballot. If weighing is very blippy on both sides with little comparison, I will go truth over tech to break clash if there is no other way to evaluate the round.

Speaking faster than 250 wpm is a risk if I don't have a speech doc. If you go above 300, please give clear extensions in the back half.

Email chains are good. If you are using them or speech docs, add me to them. LAHolmes25@mail.strakejesuit.org

I will only look at evidence if a team tells me to, or if there is heavy unresolved debate over it at the end of the round.

Read tricks if you want but implicate clearly in the back half. If both teams read tricks, I'll give both teams 30s. If only one team reads tricks, the team that read tricks loses speaks. I have a low threshold for responses if only one team reads tricks.

Strake Jesuit PF Debater

email chains are cool: rqli26@mail.strakejesuit.org

check out the debate hotline on Instagram, very good organization in promoting a better debate space, highly recommend

This paradigm's pretty empty, don't be afraid to ask more in-depth questions before round

Speaks

Any tournament: Any good pop culture reference (I might not catch it tho) that is naturalin speech (don't force it) gets my utmost respect and gets 30 speaks.

If you tell me a good joke before round you also get a 30.

For team events, this is not applied to the whole team.

In person: Bring me anything from the concession stand and the whole team gets 30 speaks

Online: Show me your pet on camera (preferably a cat) and I will give everyone in the round 30 speaks

General

Don't yell during cross and especially not grand cross T_T

Debate is just a game at the end of the day. Everyone's a nerd, so don't take anything too serious

I look to weighing first

If spread please send doc. Send doc just in general tbh

Signposting is a must and a roadmap would be helpful

10 second grace period overtime. I won't flow during grace, but if you keep talking after that speaks will plummet. 10 should be more than enough time to wrap up, anything more than that is absurd.

Substance

Tech>Truth, but if your tech argument is absolutely ridiculous, the threshold of responses will not be high. At least try to make realistic scenarios.

Theory

Go for it, but friv shells=low threshold

Default yes RVI's

Try to avoid theory, contact your opponents before round please

If I know a team's coach does not allow for disclosure, I will not vote on the shell. I know the struggle of having a strict coach and hitting a disclo shell every round for something out of your control is not cool. I trust you, please don't lie. Disclosure is a good norm, so do it if you can.

Kritiks

Run at your own risk

I'm not afraid to vote on it if you're cooking, but you will have to be winning very clearly, not a big K fan.

Tricks

My threshold for responses is breathing

Misc

All speaks will be above 28 unless you do something very bad (racism, sexism, etc.) tbh just do one of the things mentioned above for 30's

Treat your opponents with respect, I will drop you if you are a terrible person, even if you are winning. There's a fine line between confident/aggressive/hostile, and aggression will get your speaks dropped at the least.

If everyone agrees we can skip grand cross for an extra minute of prep

I have 2 years of debate experience!

• Did LD and switched to PF
• Went to NSD 

Couple rules

1. don’t ask me to disclose I will not
2. Be clear when you speak and sign post well

How I’ll evaluate the round 

• I evaluate turns
• Flay judge 
• Point out the flaws in arguments but extend it!!! If you don’t extend it throughout the whole round I won’t count it 
• Roadmaps while you speak. I won’t know where to flow if you don’t tell me where.
• If you treat me like someone that has no experience and actually explains everything properly you have my vote!

Thats all! Good luck guys and girls :) 

Strake Jesuit '26

michael.meng43@gmail.com

Judging Philosophy

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments must still be explained and implicated sufficiently. Arguments outweigh and interact with other arguments based on the context of the round. Furthermore, contextual and specific explanation, weighing, and comparison are necessary to make rounds clear.

I don't have an intrinsic bias for arguments, but I think certain arguments are better and require more robust answers to beat back. Whereas certain arguments may be sillier and require less robust answers.

Scenarios start at 0. Sweeping explanations of the world are rare.

Hi, i'm rehan, and i'm a junior at Strake Jesuit!

Competed on the NAT circ for the past year and a half

Add RMerchant25@mail.strakejesuit.org to the email chain!

Flow judge

Tech> Truth

Weigh as early as u can in the round so if there's a messy debate and im getting solid weighing early from one side i can vote on it.

You should frontline in second rebuttal defense ISN'T sticky

preflow before round

start the email chain before round if you can too

Please send cut cards!! No paraphrasing evidence and have good evidence ethics

You can go fast idc j send it in the email chain and slow on analytics so that way I can understand them

Theory

I am not super good with theory bc i don't debate it alot

I have read disclosure and paraphrasing

I believe people should disclose (open source) and not paraphrase

After round

I normally will start at a 28.5 and go up or down depending on how respectful you are and strats

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD

Good luck and have fun!!

Affiliation: Strake Jesuit

Treat me like a traditional judge with an emphasis on clear communication. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Please do not assume I know the jargon you use. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Signposting and crystallization are hugely helpful. Telling me where to start on the flow is a great idea. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend through every speech. I want to see lots of weighing: rounds without weighing are very difficult to adjudicate. Make it easy for me to vote for you.

I think David Kennedy's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing

Strake Jesuit '25

did PF debate for 2 years

tech over truth

U can run theory, i dont rrly know how to evaluate Trixs and other rrly prog arguments.

Speaks-

i start at a 25 and go up and down from there, if i think u spoke rrly well u might even get a 27 !

if you do cross in a funny accent i will give u +1 speaker points

Strake Jesuit ‘26

ezwan26@mail.strakejesuit.org

Send docs with cut cards in email chains

i won’t look at evidence unless asked so no harm at sending

Debate is a game and you’re here to win - tech > truth

Absent warrants default neg on presumption and util fw

Absent warrants, every argument starts on the same layer -theory or k's don't uplayer for no reason and should be warranted out on why fairness or the k outweighs substance - rotb, fw, and weighing are used to uplayer. I will vote substance > theory if warranted. Absent warranting, whoever has the better link into the arg wins.

I will vote on any argument

I will attempt to do as little work for you as possible but all arguments must have a warrant and you must be able to explain it or I can't vote on it

Go as fast as you want - I can flow around 340 wpm as an upper limit on cards without a doc (but only if you’re really clear, I will say clear if you aren’t) Slower on analytics and tags go 250 wpm.I will yell clear if you’re incoherent

CX is binding but has to be brought up again

Weighing first then link level

0 risk exists, but only if implicated, 0 risk > weighing

Absent any weighing the least conceeded argument wins

Meta weigh it makes it easier to evaluate who’s winning but absent meta weighing order is, prereq > magnitude (if biggest impact is extinction else it goes above scope) > timeframe > short circuit > scope > probability

Probability is not real, it’s how conceded your argument are. Most of the time it's new defense and I won't buy that, empirical analysis is the closest to probability weighing

Extend your arguments - non negotiable issue, extensions must be fully warranted out and I will only eval what's actually extended.

Prep ends when email is sent

Pref Sheet

LARP/Theory - 1

K - 1/2

T - 2

Phil - 4

PF:

Defense is not sticky

Extend in every speech starting in summary or else it’s dropped

No new weighing past 2nd summary

Framing should be introduced in constructive and can be responded to in constructive OR rebuttal

Theory and K’s don’t have to be extended in rebuttal

If you want to read a K:

1 - topical neg k's should be read if the aff links beforehand - otherwise the aff is allowed to skim around your link if they find a way and your k basically got no linked

2 - k’s on the neg should link to the aff

3 - non t affs probably should only be read if you are 1st aff - it's fine if you do but its a personal preference.

4 - the neg can’t read perms and the aff can’t read counterplans to the neg

I'll still eval it if you don't follow these rules but I'll be very sad

pls read plans/ctrplan

LD:

I know the general structure of how ld is supposed to work but don't know specific norms, see below to the arguments.

LARP

a good larp round is great - I can eval basically anything here.

err on explaination in counter plan debates - I don't have experience with how competition works.

Theory

absent warrants, default ci, no rvi, and dta if it concerns an argument and dtd on others

no rvis by default moot any counter interp offense

you don't have to extend the interp word for word

I won't hack for a shell but personally I think that disclosure is good, para is bad, condo good, and tw's are not great

K

I don't have experience with hyper dense literature kritiks but understand most stock kritiks, just explain a little more than you normally do on complex k's and you should be fine

familiar with cap, security, Asian, setcol, disability, queer, psycho

Wont hack but tfw is probably 40/60 v. nont affs in a perfect world if you do it right.

err on overexplaination - I have to know what I’m voting on, this does not mean I will use prior knowledge to help you

for pf, pls read a real k

Minimum 29.7 if you read Mollow unless you do it bad

For PF look at the PF section regarding K's

T

err on explanation

I never had experience with T debates - read it if you want

Tricks - idc do it if you wanna, I will eval them

Phil

I don't know that much about it so ngl, unless its like simple or unless you give a bunch of explanation - this is like the one argument I have no idea whats happening

err on extreme hyper overexplaination - I do not understand Phil like at all

Speaks

Speaks are arbitrary, with that being said they’re the only thing I can control

Range is 25-30 (unless theres disrespect or something harmful) starting at a 29.8, speaks go up or down based how I think your strat is but generally shouldn’t be below a 28.5. The average is 29.4, if the round doesnt become really bad.

ngl I’ll give everyone a 30 if the round is enjoyable and not just another generic round

For a speaks boost. 1. Not being dumb, 2. Reading a counterplan or plan in pf, I’ll give you an above 29.5, 3. Sending cut cards verbatimized

ill disclose speaks if you ask

postround if you want + ask questions pre round

15 Bids in LD

Won Emory, Texas, and TFA State. Broke at TOC 3x.

2 Gold Bids in PF

nwei24@mail.strakejesuit.org

Read mostly pseudo-topical Asian K affs, Set Col, Theory, Phil, Impact Turns, and Process CPs.

I reward innovative strategies and positions.

I consider myself to be a flex debater.

K debaters should pref me if they are highly technical.

Probably a quarter of my K Aff rounds ended up being a 1AR restart.

In policy debates, risk starts at 0 and goes up. My bar for warrants are high.

Comfortable with advanced counterplan competition.

No such thing as friv theory.

(bolded stuff is the td;lr)

Hey, I'm Winston!

I wanna be on the email chains wtwu26@mail.strakejesuit.org

I’m a sophmore at strake this my 2nd year debating

If I can't understand it I can't evaluate it

Tech>Truth,
Please have cut cards
Don't be mean or a bigot

If u have a question just ask

I can vote on anything that’s warranted

I'll vote off of any argument as long as it's warranted and extended through

(the threshold for resp to intrinsically harmful args i.e. death good, __-ist good, Xenophobia good, is pretty low...) i may vote off of spiritualism k if u bring me a lemonade from Chick fil-A

I can go tech (also abt 300wpm-ish flow b4 i start to blip a little)I will yell "clear"

Open CX is fine, skipping gcx is fine, flex-prep is fine

Auto 30s, or slightly lower, I'll give speaks out mostly on strategy (20s/25s based on some exceptions below tho)

Please refer to me as “Chat” instead of “Judge”. This will boost your speaks by 0.5 if done correctly.

PLEASE EXTEND its the easiest path to the ballot

You should probably do these to be successful: (in this order preferably but doesn't matter)it makes evaluating pretty easy and clean, but I believe that no round is every fully clean ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Extend: re-explain ur main arguments (Claim, Warrant, Impact)

Frontline: Defend the main argument by responding to the opps response (or u can extend conceded offense and implicate that)

Weigh:

Basically just doing comparisons between your impacts and your opponent’s impacts

ill pref meta theory--> Prereqs--> Short Circuits/Link-Ins--> Probability/Linkweigh--> Timeframe--> Impact calc/Mag or Scope,

weighing is lowk the most important part of a round(Probability or clarity weighing is a little fake since its j basically "how much ur arg is conceded")

”we’re the best link into x impact” when both teams are going for the same impact is very underutilized in debate and I think it’s pretty good

Attack: Extend conceded defense (Turns, terminal defense, Impact defense,) and weigh/implicate as well

Weighing and attacking on the opp side of the flow are prolly the main paths to the ballot, double turns that you make on your flow or conceded case works as well

Going for turns is funny

Sticky defense is fake, extend the main offense ur going for thru summary and FF for me to eval

For New weighing and new responses, I'll give some leniency for them. It's okay in first/2nd final only if the opps made new weighing in 2nd summ/1st FF

Postround me if u want

Theory:

I can count the amount of actual theory rounds I’ve had on one hand and none of them have been very good

I can probably evaluate a theory round but I’m not the best judge

speaks will be lowered to ~28.5 if any theory arguments are read cuz I dislike judging these rounds

TKOs are fine but im not great at eval; if ur right and your opps have no path to the ballot, u get W30s, if ur wrong; L20s

Clipping is an L20

ethan (he/him) - go follow the debate hotline !!!

quals
- 3 gold, 4 silver bids total
- tfa semis, uh champions, outrounds at ukso, sunvite, fbk, emory, nyc, only one outround at harvard

pf paradigm
- tech>truth
- please signpost
- substance>prog
- please set up an email chain
- pleasepleasepleaseplease weigh, tell me which side to vote for
- default 1st speaking team

- if ur running high level prog arguments, you need to be able to PROPERLY EXPLAIN IT and answer my questions about it, im really stupid if I don't understand ur argument IM NOT VOTING FOR IT

other stuff
- idk that much about other events- treat me like a flay/lay
- auto 30s for any beyonce or kpop reference, +speaks if u make me laugh
- dont be exclusionary - no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc

dont take debate super seriously
"debate is a game" ok??? games are meant to be fun - dont take it too seriously

compete on the nat circ

put me on the email chain: jzhao25@mail.strakejesuit.org

feel free to reach out if u have questions

prefs

larp - 1

theory/kritiks - 2

k affs - 3

trix - 4

big picture stuff

tech > truth

debate is a game ill vote off anything with warrants

do anything u want as long as its not problematic i.e racist, homophobic, etc

collapse extend and weigh

speed fine but send doc

speed is a tool that should be used to explain things better and give them more breadth not to spam warrantless arguments but a good dump is always appreciated

weighing needs to be comparative and meta weighing or link weighing are good way to clear up the weighing debate

dont try to hide new defense as "probability weighing"

sol weighing is only relevant if the arg is conceded and u do meta weighing off of sol

link weighing > impact weighing

anything that isnt frontlined in second rebuttal is conceded

turns need to be implicated and weighed

cross doesnt matter to me

stuff in ff has to be in summary and needs an explicit extensions of unq link internal link and impact for anything u go for

default neg but u can make args for defaulting aff/neg or 1st/2nd

no new presumption warrants in ff

pls no off the clock roadmap just signpost

prog

fine w theory - dont need to extend interp/violation in rebuttal but the shell should be read in the speech after the violation

default to yes rvis competing interps and spirit over text

no rvis doesnt mean ur shell is a no risk offense issue - if someone wins a link turn on ur shell or that their ci is better u lose

if multiple shells are being read they need to be weighed against each other

paraphrasing is bad disclosure is good but it doesnt mean ill hack for those arguments

not well versed in more complex k lit like baudrillard but i have a good understanding of the stock stuff like cap, security, set col, etc so run at ur risk

try to make the k as accessible as possible so that a parent could understand

low threshold to responses to trix and dont hide them in tags