Strake Jesuit '23
bold stuff is rly all u gotta know
I am primarily tech > truth.
*I say primarily because I won't listen to argument that are blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic etc. Additionally, if an argument is just blatantly not true or is not something you expect me to understand after hearing it the first time (such as tricks or an absurdly weird impact/link scenario), I will have a higher threshold for extending/explaining and frontlining the argument.
I won't call for evidence unless someone tells me too or it's heavily disputed and there is no good in round comparison.
I presume status quo or first speaking team if the topic is a policy action or benefits o/w harms until there is a presumption argument. My threshold for a presumption argument is fairly low, but it still needs an actual warrant and needs to be read before 2nd final focus.
If you want to win, comparatively weigh on both the link and impact level. Don't just spam buzzwords, give analysis and compare it to your opponents arguments. If you don't, I'll just vote for the more compelling link or the, if it's obvious, larger impact.
I believe probability weighing exists and is a good method of weighing. However, proving one part of your link is probable doesn't mean the entire argument is. Additionally, don't use probability weighing as an excuse to read new defense. Lastly, if you win your link you get access to the level of probability presented in your case.
If you're reading a link-in in summary and it's elaborate, I'll have a low threshold for in-depth responses. That being said, you can still win it and if it's in rebuttal i'll view it like any other argument. Also compare your link-ins to your opponents link. Usually other weighing mechanisms do that for you but I like when it's explicit.
Meta weighing is good. If I get a bunch of weighing mechanisms from both sides but no comparative I will probably have to intervene to an extent.
Warranting your arguments is really important as well. I won't vote on an argument that isn't warranted or doesn't have a warrant extended through Summary and FF. If your opponent makes the claim that your argument has no warrant and I agree then it functions as terminal defense.
If you are going to kick out of a turn you have to do it in the speech after the turn and Delink/NU is read, otherwise the turn is conceded. However, if your opponents extend Both a Delink/NU and a turn, you can kick out of the turn in the speech after they are both extended. If you want to go for an impact turn please remember to at least briefly extend their link, and if you are going for a link turn, their impact.
I'm ok w/ y'all delinking your own arguments. It can be strategic in certain situations but it isn't always the best look and your speaks might take a minor hit. Additionally, my threshold for responding to the delink/making arguments as to why you shouldn't be able to delink your own arguments its fairly low.
I won't listen to it attentively but cross is binding.
Speed is fine. If you are going to go above 300 wpm then send a speech doc or I will just start docking speaks. Also, if I can't flow your argument, I can't evaluate it.
Speech specific stuff:
Do what you want but reading a lot of disads in 2nd rebuttal might hurt your speaks if it's against people who are clearly struggling w/ it or I think its abusive.
I suggest you frontline in 2nd rebuttal. However, the only thing you need to frontline is offense from the first rebuttal. It would be much much much better if you get through everything tho.
Carded weighing/framing is cool but I would suggest reading it in case. Latest speech for carded weighing is first summary.
Whether you collapse or not in this speech is up to you.
Weigh turns against your opponents case in rebuttal otherwise you're going to have to invest a lot of time into explaining what the turn is and why the turn matters in summary.
Pls extend your arguments, and extend well. You can extend by author names or by just explaining you argument but it needs to have UQ -> L -> IL -> !
You can extend while frontlining (I suggest this b/c it is more efficient), extend before frontlining, or extend after fronting. I don't care just as long as you do extend and frontline.
My threshold for extending conceded arguments is lower than for contested ones. Keep in mind this isn't an excuse for a bad/no link extension.
Please collapse in this speech. This applies to turns as well.
Defense is sticky until frontlined, so if it is frontlined in second rebuttal then defense isn't sticky in summary, if it isn't responded to in rebuttal then you don't need to extend it in summary, but its cool if u extend defense in case u wanna implicate it more or smthn.
Please weigh, when digging through the arguments I will look to the one with the best weighing first.
Final Focus -
Everything piece of offense you are going for in this speech should have been in summary.
My threshold for new weighing in FF is much higher than it is for other speeches, and if you are second, I'll only flow your responses to weighing if your opponents started in first final.
Defense isn't sticky in FF.
Same thing about extending in summary applies here as well. Extensions can probably be more lazy if there is clearly less/no ink on the argument you're extending. Lazy does not mean incomplete.
There is a line between being mean and being funny, don't cross it. If you are funny your speaks increase, if you are mean they do the opposite.
I start at 28.5 and speaks will go up for in round decisions/strategy. It really shouldn't be hard to get above a 29. However, some tournaments have .5 intervals and don't allow ties, in which case this will probably be different. I'll err on the side of higher speaks.
Speaks are given based on competitiveness of the pool.
If you win fairly convincingly while going substantially slower than your opponents or frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal, I will probably give you 29.5-30.
Speaking style isn't rly that important but still try and be somewhat persuasive b/c that is partially what PF is about. I'll reward more persuasive speakers with higher speaks but not necessarily vice versa.
Ask questions before the round if you have any about my paradigm.
I'll evaluate progressive stuff normally and have a decent amount of experience with such arguments, although I don't always love them. Theory is ok if there is an actual abuse, but I see no reason why it can't be in paragraph form or has to be spread. If you are going to read a K - 1. I might not understand it which will make it harder to vote for 2. Make sure your opponents understand what is going on or that you have written the K in a way in which someone just beginning the debate can understand.
I default yes RVIs and CI > Reasonability btw.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Feel free to post round me/ask questions but try not to make it insanely excessive or make other judges and/or competitors uncomfortable. If a tournament is running late or I need to get going then just Facebook messenger me w/ questions.
I will give an oral RFD and maybe disclose speaks (if someone asks and both teams are ok with it).