Tabroom.com

The Bilo Bowl

2018 — Houston, TX/US

Public Forum Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Mr. Duke 2022 Hire

Last changed on Wed January 9, 2019 at 4:46 PM CDT

Strake Jesuit '18

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email: pierce.hollier@duke.edu

Important update/note: I am putting this up here because I don't want to go through I find all the places that I've talked about it in the text below. I am not going to enforce disclosure/speech docs in any win/loss way. It will only serve to increase your speaks

Feel free to ask me if there is any uncertainty about what parts apply and don't. If you read a turn in first rebuttal and the second rebuttal drops it, the first summary still needs to extend it. I don't require the first summary to extend defense that isnt frontlined but I do require all offense in the summary. If the first summary drops a nonfrontlined turn and then they bring it up in first final focus the most I give is terminal defense on the argument, you no longer get offense since you dropped it summary.

PF Paradigm (a lot of this is copied from my partner's (Daniel Wang) paradigm):

-I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, qualified to TFA state 3 years and finished in semis senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year.

-Please be pre-flowed prior to the round.

-If you have 5 minutes before a round and failed to read my entire paradigm, here is the short version (even though you should have read the whole thing since I'm not including many specifics in here that are important):

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism or sexism good. Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me or make me think that you're not good at debate. Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I am truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level. (Read Below)

On disclosure theory: Winning AT: Ask Me or AT: I'll Email it is incredibly easy in front of me. There's probably a norm-setting argument that you can win incredibly easily if they refuse to disclose on wiki but say they'll email you, etc. If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.

B. Conceded arguments are 100% true. There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Also, the implication needs to be there at some point or else I will make it up for you.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important. I would prefer you send (or disclose) cases, and all evidence in later speeches to me via an e-mail chain. Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. Speaker points are also affected by this. Read below for more details. You always should disclosed. Read below. Disclosure will get you better speaks.

D. Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for. The 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it. Defense does not need to be in 1st summary if dropped, but the implication does need to be there (by the final focus) at some point or else I will make it up for you.

Also, please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred. You can start doing more big picture in Final Focus but make sure you're still winning on the technical level because I don't care about persuasion.

E. Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there is minimal abuse. You should be aware that my threshold for responses to really friv theory probably gets lower as the theory gets more friv.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are not arguments.

G. There are a lot of different ways to extend evidence. You can say concession of x or you've conceded x. You don't have to say extend each time. That gets way too repetitive but if you want, I don't care.

H. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

I. 2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!!!!!! Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in summary, GG.

J. If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker point because calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them. It's also really obvious that some teams do it to mess with their opponents.

K. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep when you stand up or while waiting for evidence exchanges. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. [Exception for TOC due to rules]. Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks.

L. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it. This is a time when I would be ok with what most people would call intervention.

However, you should probably read the whole paradigm because most of it is important. Also, I understand this paradigm is probably really long. Also, as a debater I liked very long and detailed paradigms so I decided to do this.

General Stuff:

-I don't care what you wear (within reason of course) and judges that do are messed up. If you want to take off your coat and tie, I don't care. I did that a bunch when I debated.

-All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument.

However, there are a few hard rules that are part of debate.

1. Speech times are set.

2. Prep Time is set (2 minutes typically, even though that's an absurdly short amount of time)

3. I vote for one team and one team only.

4. Evidence needs author last name/year.

Anything else is alright. I'm not going to hurt you for not reading quals. However, if someone challenges the quals or cred of the author (which I think is usually a really bad argument) then have them on hand.

IMPORTANT!!!!! READ BELOW:

I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded following my paradigm of conceded arguments being true. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested. However, this does not mean I want teams reading 50 crappy blocks/"arguments" against the other team. All arguments need to have a warrant and implication. If there isn't one, I probably won't evaluate it.

-If I am on a panel, obviously adapt to the other judges and I will gladly follow what you do because I understand that my paradigm differs from the "community norm."

HOWEVER, read the below section because it is pretty important:

Disclosure (Very Important):

Pre-Round Disclosure:

-The coin flip should happen about 15 minutes before the round (25-30 minutes for flight 2). I'm not really going to be able to enforce this, I just don't want you delaying the round because of it. I put this in because I just think it's good for the education and helps disclosure. I understand that it could be hard to find your opponents amongst the huge crowd of debaters. That being said, refusing to flip for no good reason will make me sad. This is a sad trend that we are seeing in which teams don't flip until literally 30 seconds before the round starts. That kills all pre-round prep advantage and time. The affirmative should tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is "new aff." If it is a new plan but the same advantages, the aff should disclose the advantages being read, but does not have to disclose the plan. Same is true of new advantages. If you swap out a few cards but it's the same advantage, the AFF should say same advantage with new cards. Changing a few cards does not mean it's a new AFF. Since this is PF, you should also tell your opponents what the neg is before the debate, the same rules still apply.

-If you lie about what will be read to your opponents and they can prove it, I will really lower your speaks and maybe down you depending on what happened. Please don't make me evaluate this kind of thing.

-If the other team can prove to me that they asked to flip and you refused to do so, I will dock your speaker points for the round. If they can prove that they asked for what AFF/NEG and you didn't tell them, I'll also be sad. Also anyone can make theory arguments out of these scenarios.

-If you are at a circuit tournament and they pointed out that you haven't disclosed and tell me why that's a bad thing, I'm sorry but there's not much you can do after that. I lean truth>tech on the disclosure debate. You need to win tech > truth first in you want to go that route on disclosure theory. However, you should meet your interpretation.

-One exception: If you read disclosure against a team that are clearly novices, I will still vote you up, but don't be excited about your speaker points.

NDCA Wiki Disclosure:

-Teams SHOULD disclose all broken positions on the NDCA PF Wiki. I think most arguments against disclosure are pretty silly, and don't worry too much about whether or not the violation can be verified. I will check their wiki for you. To encourage disclosure I will make it so that your speaker points can be altered by you disclosing.

-I start everyone around a 27.0. Basically, the highest speaks you're getting by not disclosing is a 28.9-29.4 (assuming you are absolutely perfect). However, if you do disclose, I will give you a 1 point bonus.

-Also, if your case is paraphrased, you don't have cards to disclose. Therefore, paraphrased stuff does not count as disclosure and don't try disclosing paraphrased cases cause I don't know how you can do it. Copying and pasting your case without citations is absurd/awful. There's no way for other people to check your evidence and see the validity of it since most of it is probably power-tagged. If you read paraphrased cases, you have to disclose the cut cards properly as if you're reading a case with cut cards in it and make the paraphrasing the tag of the card or somewhat similar.

Evidence Ethics:

-I am strong believer in cut cards. I believe that paraphrasing is ok... (not really) but since it is a norm so deeply rooted in PF, it probably won't change. However, I believe strongly in arguments against paraphrasing. I am fine with paraphrasing bad theory and am willing to vote on it. MAKE SURE YOU DEFINE PARAPHRASING IN A FINE WAY THAT EXCLUDES CUT CARDS. READ A DEFINITION. Otherwise, you are probably not going to win this theory debate despite me wanting to vote on it. Don't make me sad!! Also, please frontline the common but not true responses to paraphrasing good.

-Also, if you see below, if you paraphrase evidence, you will lose out on a speaker point bonus. Bottom line: Cut Cards. It's not that hard to cut cards. Also, you need cut cards to be able to disclose on the wiki. As I say somewhere else in my paradigm, it is absurd to be able to read 25 pieces of evidence in the case.

-I am extremely pissed off at teams who misconstrue evidence and then proceed to win because of that evidence. Thus, I am going to take a hardline stance against that. If I see that you misconstrued evidence beyond what I JUDGE TO BE a honest mistake or lack of knowledge of statistics, I will give you no higher than a 25 and possibly a big L and report you to tab if it is bad enough or it happens too many times. One big thing is that one standard deviation is not 1%.

-Also, I would prefer teams to start an email chain with your case w/ the cut cards or at least hyperlinks and send it to: pierce.hollier@duke.edu. Make the subject: "Round -- Tournament Round Number -- Aff Code vs Neg Code"

-This means send every speech doc for the round to me so I can make sure you aren't miscutting or clipping cards. Prep time stops when you are done editing the doc. Emailing doesn't count. However, if you are taking a long time, I will start your prep time again, If I am suspecting that you are stealing prep, your speaks will get hurt. Emailing should take around 30-40 seconds at max. If you can't go to your email, drag the speech doc and hit send, you're doing something else and that means that you are stealing prep.

-If you don't know how to make a speech doc, learn how to make one. Verbatim is a great tool for debate and it's 2018. Teams should be able to go paperless by now (in terms of evidence). If you have a student email you can get Microsoft Word for free by just creating an Office 365 account with that email.

-All evidence should be sent to me since this event's evidence ethics are awful.

-If you misrepresent cards, miscut, or clip, I am willing to give you a L<20. I will intervene in this situation. If you read cut cards for your rebuttal instead of paraphrasing, I will give you and your partner a speak reward for good norms.

-If you can't find the evidence within a couple minutes, your speaks are getting a little bump down and that evidence is getting dropped. You should always cut cards before you paraphrase so they should be available but if you read cut cards you won’t have this problem.

Speaker Points:

-I give speaker points based on strategy. Clarity also matters, but is an extremely marginal factor in deciding what speaker points I give you. I do not care about persuasion. It's about what you say in round. You can speak pretty but be extremely bad on the flow and I will not hesitate to give a 27.7 out.

-I'll call clear/slow 3 times before I start deducting points. Strategy > Clarity. First, I start everyone around a 27. If you do disclose, I will reward you with a bonus by starting at a 28.0 and move up and down from there on increments of 0.1 based on strategy/argumentation. If you read cut cards in your case and disclose, I will generally like you more. Basically, read cut cards if you want higher speaks. It's absurd how people can hint at 40 authors in one case because you can somehow paraphrase the article in one sentence.

-If you're in the bubble round, I will probably be more generous with speaker points since I know how much it sucks to be 4-2 or 5-2 and not break. Humor and roasting your opponents to a certain extent will boost your speaks.

-If you say "I'm sorry [insert name of opponents], but you're going to lose. I'm going to finals" -[TFA State 2017 LD Semifinals] before your final speech and then you win, I will probably reward you. If you lose, no punishment. You'll just be embarrassed for saying that and your opponents can laugh at you.

I will boost your speaks if you do any of the following well:

A) Utilizing a daring strategy i.e. kicking case and going for turns, etc. Going for 2/4 minutes on the RVI against theory or T. Going for one link turn and weighing the crap out of it.

B) Turning the case for 4 minutes in the 2nd constructive and 4 more minutes in the rebuttal and actually doing it well.

C) Weighing in rebuttal/case and telling me the implication of each argument or doing stuff that falls under the "util" section of my paradigm.

Speed:

-If you know me, you probably know I preferred faster debate. This means that I am fine with speed. HOWEVER, DO NOT SPEED UP/SPREAD IF YOU CAN'T!!! I will deduct speaks for doing so. Slow down on tags and author names!! If you don't slow for those things you're gonna have a bad time.

-Also if you spread, you must be reading cut cards in the tag, cite, card format. If you're paraphrasing and you spread A. I'll miss your author name and B. Usually there's no distinction between cards since you won't be reading tags and I’ll miss a bunch of random stuff. So maybe you shouldn't paraphrase.

-I will say "clear" or "slow" 3 times before I start deducting speaks.

-Also please slow down on analytics or else I might not catch everything you say. If you blaze through a theory dump and get 5 points out in 10 seconds, I'm definitely going to miss stuff.

-Delineate between tags and the card. As you move on from a card to an analytic, just be clear. When you move from a card to a new tag, say "aannnd" The only oral citation that you need is the author last name/year. So like Smith 17. Institution and author credentials aren't necessary, but can help you with evidence comparison.

-If you spread, please give your opponent's your speech doc either by email, flashdrive, pass pages, or a viewing computer.

-Please signpost!!!! If you don't, I will be very very sad and probably miss a lot of your arguments/be delayed by 3-5 seconds, so don't be mad if you were blazing through your arguments at 400WPM and didn't signpost.

Generics:

-I am tab which means I will buy almost any argument (yes this includes nuclear war (Danny and I won pretty much all of our Septober 17 rounds on this)) if it is warranted correctly. I also will not intervene. You need to make all of the analysis. However, if a link turn is straight-up conceded your extensions of the impacts can be blippy (but if you don't weigh them after extension your opponent could still win). Don't double turn yourself. In addition, my threshold for extensions is pretty low if it's actually conceded. If they concede a contention for example, take 10 seconds to extend the whole contention.

-Also, I will not vote on offensive arguments. Death good is fine, but racism good is probably not. However, you do the weighing and meta-weighing for all other arguments.

-TLDR: Tech > Truth (except disclosure). Conceded arguments are 100% true. Make arguments for why some weighing mechanism should come first. However, I am willing to assign 0-risk to something meaning that magnitude doesn't matter. Also, 0-risk means no risk of offense. Strength of link weighing is probably the best way to get my ballot. If something is conceded, I give it 100% strength of link and conceded arguments are true.

-My philosophy is pretty simple: I will take the least interventionist approach to judging debates. However, I will intervene if what you say is blatantly wrong i.e. the United States is in Europe, etc. Please make some jokes. Keep them somewhat appropriate. I am willing to reward humor.

-I also will not intervene to clear up a muddled argument if nobody does any of the stuff I want that falls under the "util" section in my paradigm. In the case where the round is way too muddled, presumption flows neg if neg defends squo. Otherwise, if neg reads a CP or defends some alternate world, presumption flows aff. I can be persuaded otherwise, just justify your arguments for why. The above is just a default in the event that nobody makes a single argument about presumption.

RFDs:

-If the tournament allows it, I will disclose and provide an oral RFD with speaker points included. If you want to grill me, that's fine, but wait until after I am done giving my RFD. However, if your coach wants to grill me, I will be willing to answer questions ONLY if they watched and flowed the round. Other than that, don't attempt to get your coach to bully me into changing my decision and voting for you. If I am on a panel and at the bottom of a decision, please wait until the other judges are finished before asking questions. If the tournament doesn’t allow for disclosure, then either FB message me or find me somewhere after the round and I’ll disclose/give you a RFD.

-I'm not big on disclosing speaks but I'll do it if everybody wants me to.

Flex Prep:

-Flex prep is fine. If you want a concession for a violation before the NC, go for it. If your opponent is being dodgy in prep, just give up and just know that I dislike people who do that in an attempt to waste prep time.

Overviews:

-Overviews are great. However, overviews are not places where you read evidence/read contention add-ons, etc. Overviews are just telling me whats important and how the round breaks down. If you decide to read basically a new contention as an overview, I will be extremely angry at you and be inclined to drop your speaks. I will still evaluate it ONLY IF YOU READ IT IN FIRST REBUTTAL, NOT THE SECOND. Even then, I'll be unhappy with you. You have a 4 minute case for a reason.

Specific Arguments and Preferences:

Fiat:

-If the topic is a policy implementation topic, the policy is enacted the second you begin reading the first words of the 1AC. This means you can't spec out of Elections DAs or Politics DAs. I believe in massive fiat power i.e. the affirmative can literally spec what the USFG should do with the money or anything. Probability doesn't matter, but you should read a solvency advocate. However, theory arguments can also be read against this strategy so just be aware. "PF doesn't have fiat" is the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

-I also default durable fiat meaning that rollback arguments don't apply to the AFF. This is just a default. If you can justify why I should give the AFF durable fiat or vice versa, I am willing to listen to your arguments and make a decision or evaluate the round based on those arguments.

Util Debate:

-I love good util debate. "Good" is the key term, meaning that you should be doing great evidence comparison, impact weighing, link comparison, strength of link weighing, etc. Evidence comparison in LARP debates are your best friend.

-Also, don't throw jargon out there for the sake of it. Doing the above things will earn you extra speaker points especially when it comes to evidence comparison. Also, being proficient at these skills will go a long way in helping your debate success. This is something rarely seen in PF and is what separates good debaters from great debaters.

-Do a lot of line-by-line work here. Evidence quality also probably matters a lot. Make smart arguments on the line-by-line and you'll be happy.

-Case Debate is good. A lot of cases are missing internal links or their internal links are straight garbage. A 1N that recognizes this and takes out the internal links will make me happy. Also, turns are good here. A 2N that collapses to turns and explains/weighs them really well will probably impress me.

-Impact turn debates are great, but they usually get incredibly messy. If you decide to engage in an impact turn debate, make sure you do weighing and evidence comparison. Otherwise, impact turn debates become card wars without any comparison which makes it impossible to resolve.

-Impact Defense is also incredibly important. Good Impact D can bring probability of an adv down to 0% or close to 0% pretty quickly. If you go for a CP, you should still spend some time on case to make it easier.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. If they concede an advantage, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only decide to go for a link or impact turn, you can first spend 8-10 seconds extending that advantage and then proceed to frontline that turn. Obviously if there's a lot of link defense, frontline that and make sure you're doing a lot of good util debate to make the decision easier in your favor.

Underviews:

-I honestly believe that reading a few theoretical/paradigm issue spikes at the bottom of the case can be extremely strategic and give you a massive time advantage in the second half of the round. You can take out minutes of argument with one extension if you have good strategic vision. Just warrant your spikes and you're good.

Orders:

-Please try and refrain from using the term "off-time roadmap" some variant of that, it annoys me: Saying "I'm going to start on their case and come back to mine if time permits" is not the order. You need to tell me where you're starting, preferably on the card name in later speeches and specific contentions. Also, say THE ORDER will be... and BE SPECIFIC ON WHERE YOU'RE GOING. Literally tell me the exact part where you're starting and the specific part where you will proceed to i.e. starting on x card on adv. 1. then adv 2. then Elections DA or something. I get that the order might need to change during speech, if so, MAKE THAT CLEAR WITH SIGNPOSTING.

-Also, say "affirmative" and "negative," not "pro" and "con." Nobody pros a resolution, but you affirm it. Saying those things will just annoy me. I'm not gonna deduct speaks but it just annoys me.

Case:

-PLEASE actually find a card that states what you want it to say. I HATE teams who just make assumptions in case and say that doing x will obviously result in y. Logic is fine but in topics relating to foreign/domestic policy, cards are necessary. Some debaters think they are John Mearsheimer. They aren't. Also, make sure your case is actually well put together. Most cases have weak internal links or are straight up missing them. Seeing this as a debater and making the argument that they are missing an internal link or straight up taking the internal link out will go a long way in winning the round.

Generic Turns:

-Again, this is a strategy that is somewhat underutilized in PF. People have no idea how a 4 minute generic turn dump that can apply to any single affirmative case on a implementation topic can be so strategic. HOWEVER, if you just dump cards and the opponent tells me how they don't apply, that's a problem for you. Sometimes it is way more strategic to go 1OFF (read a DA or T or Theory) and then read a load of turns in the 1NC instead of a 4 minute NC. If you're doing this strategy, do weighing and give implications well as to the role that each turn plays i.e. turns case or a specific link.

Framework:

-You need to win offense under framework. Winning framework means nothing to me if you don't have any offense under it. I will filter all offense in the round through the winning framework. Strength of link weighing will definitely help you if you both have offense under the same framework. Frameworks need to be justified and warranted. Please never read a cost-benefit analysis framework as I default util.

-If you read an alternate framework, read below on phil. I'm also fine with tricky frameworks as long as you justify them. Also, if they read an alternate framework, in order to take it out, you need to put defense on their framework and you need to generate your own framework i.e. util. Otherwise, even if you just put defense on their FW there is still a marginal chance that it is true while you have no framework. Thus, if you are reading an alternate framework, you must read it in constructive otherwise it's incredibly abusive to bust out a new framework in second rebuttal and then force the summary to read new framework offense and put defense on your framework.

-Stuff like Memmi and other framing cards count as an alternate FW. That stuff needs to come in case. Also, Memmi is an awful card. Please read better framework evidence/justifications.

-Recontextualization of your FW to exclude certain arguments is iffy. If the implication was there early on and they just failed to respond, then I guess I'm fine with it. If it isn't there, then I guess it depends how much spin you put on it. If it's a super super unpredictable re-contextualization and you get called out, I'm probably not going to evaluate it.

TJFs:

-TJFs are fine and if you read theoretical justifications, I will instantly default to those as a higher standard than whatever your opponents read; however, the regular theory stuff kicks into play i.e. fairness vs. education, weighing, etc.

Theory:

-I am receptive to theory and have a pretty good understand of how it functions in round. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so.

-However, if theory is run poorly I will deduct speaker points. Also, please run theory in shell format if you don't know how to read good paragraph theory. I absolutely hate paragraph theory that is run poorly. If you want to see what good theory that isn't in shell format is, go watch the 2AC of NDT 2016 Semis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlNgb2dELmU

-Other than that, I will buy theory on almost anything i.e. condo bad, PICs bad, must read advocacy text, but I am also open to listening to the opposite side. You also need to make the arguments for voter weighing i.e. fairness and education.

-Make sure you do Strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's gonna be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded.

-I also REFUSE to gut-check theory. If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc. Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics i.e. defending all AMS on AFF on the SoKo topic.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-I will not default that fairness and education are voters. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. It really does. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs. These are not hard defaults and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments. For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess you're gonna have a bad time. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. Don't worry, I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a shell format. If you want to read T, please read it as a shell format as well as a TVA. If you don't, it just gets hard for me to evaluate and its going to get muddled. I'll try to evaluate but don't make me do that. You need standards/net benefits. Why is being non-T bad? Is there some prep skew, limits arg that you can make? Yes. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

TLDR: If you make topicality arguments against affirmatives without warranting why being non-T or questionably non-T is bad, I probably won't evaluate it. Also, if you read T, you need a definition and interp.

K's:

I'd prefer not. But if they are run correctly then I guess I'll vote on it if you win it. But look for another route to the ballot. I can evaluate them, but don't make me.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (probably going to be hard going for Substance>Theory but you can if you want)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Philosophy:

-Minus an alternate framework, I default to util. However, I started to read a little bit of phil at the end of my junior year. I somewhat understand Kant, Hobbes, and other basic philosophy. If you want to take this approach, have good reasons why your framework comes first and give implications for how your FW controls the round. Please don't read high-theory (DnG, Baudrillard, etc.) as I have little understanding of them.

Plans and Counterplans.

-I believe that plans and counterplans do have a place in PF for most topics. I am not persuaded by NSDA rules because those rules should not exist in the first place. Do some actual topical research instead of writing your cases the night before because you were too lazy to do actual prep and then claim some rules that should not exist in the first place to help you win the round. The affirmative/negative did preparation beforehand, you should do it to. If you run T/theory on it properly, then I can be persuaded. Please make sure you read a plan-text for fiat power and slow down on the advocacy text.

-The advocacy text is binding i.e. you cannot kick out of a plank of the text. Also, please make sure your counterplans are actually mutually exclusive. Textual competition is fine. Make sure you win a net benefit to your CP though. PICs are fine and are probably extremely strategic in a lot of instances, but I am open to theory args against them.

-A permutation is a test of competition unless argued otherwise. Advocacies probably need a solvency advocate. PICs probably need to have a solvency advocate as close as possible to what you are actually advocating for. If they don't, I'll still evaluate it but it makes theory way more compelling.

DAs:

-I really don't understand why PF doesn't have more election/politics DAs in them since half the topics that we debate would probably massively influence the political climate in the United States i.e. abolishing the Electoral College would probably swing the next election.

-I'm fine with all types of DAs. However, the biggest problem with a lot of DAs is that the internal link is really weak or the internal link is completely missing, meaning that affirmatives with good strategic vision should capitalize on this and take out the internal link.

-You also need to weigh the DA i.e. DA turns case/outweighs case and give reasons why. Also, make sure uniqueness doesn't overwhelm the link and it's always good to have a link magnifier in the DA.

Rebuttal Offense-Style Overviews:

-I absolutely hate this style of debate. If you read this, be prepared to get your speaks docked. Also, I am extremely receptive to theory/spikes on this type of argumentation. A new contention/DA in the second summary is super abusive and will most likely get you downed in any other debate event and I will see that you are to in this decision as well if it justifies it. You're not being tricky, you're being stupid and your speaks will reflect that decision.

Speeches:

-I believe that defense does not need to be extended if it is conceded. However, if they frontline it, then you need to contest it. If they never address defense, there's no need to extend it. However, the implication needs to be there at some point i.e. terminal defense, alt-cause, etc. It can be brought up as late as you want as long as the defense isn't contested.

-I really prefer LINE-BY-LINE in every speech.

-I am fine with the 1NC reading off-case positions, i.e. case turns, DAs to the affirmative instead of a standard "NC."

Rebuttal:

-The second rebuttal does not have to respond to defense, but must address turns as it is offense and the 1st summary should extend it. Also, go line-by-line please. You should also be reading cards. If you read a new overview that is basically a new add-on for case in the second rebuttal or some other argument that doesn't function as turns or a round break-down, I will deduct speaker points.

Summary:

-Please go for 2-3 arguments AT MAX. PLEASE WEIGH!!!!!! If you don't, you may not like my decision because I may have to intervene. Weighing should probably start in summary.

-I believe that the second final focus does not get new weighing unless the weighing first came up in the first final focus and I can be persuaded by second summary gets no new weighing as well if you give justifications at some point before that, preferably in case or rebuttal. I need extensions with card names.

-Blippy extensions are 100% fine if the argument is conceded. The best way to clear up a muddled argument is to do a lot of the stuff that falls under the "Util" section above. Do not extend through ink!

-Also, I believe that the summary should definitely go line-by-line. This is how I always debated on the circuit and if you give a great LBL summary, I will boost your speaker points.

Final Focus:

-The final focus should be focused on very similar things to the summary speech. IF IT IS OFFENSE AND NOT IN THE SUMMARY, I WILL NOT EVALUATE IT. Try to refrain from making new implications unless it was something made in the second summary/ first final focus etc. Also as I stated above, the 2nd FF does not get new weighing as that is an argument and no new arguments will be permitted in the 2nd FF.

-Final Focus should probably start going more big picture, but you still need to ensure that you're ahead on the line-by-line. If you decide to go pure line-by-line, I am 100% fine with that and honestly probably prefer that since it makes everything easier to flow and later evaluate. Overviews here are great and make sure break down the round simply for me.

Zain Ashraf Hire

Joaquin Calvillo Hire 8 rounds None

Cooper Carlile Hire None

Jerry Crist Crist Hire

Neo Curry Hire

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Cara Day Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM CDT

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.

General/TLDR

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.

-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).

- CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:

General

Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.

Rebuttal

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Summary

My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.

Final

I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.

Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.

I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 2

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc

Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.

DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

Joseph Doggy-Who Hire

Joseph Dowdall Hire

Last changed on Sun December 22, 2019 at 6:01 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19

Contact: jhdowdall19[at]mail[dot]strakejesuit[dot]org

Update for the Strake RR: I haven't judged since NDF, but I reread my paradigm and still agree with most of it.

Technicians over truth.

Evaluating the Round

First, framing and weighing: I will attempt to figure out what arguments are the most important based on any framing and weighing read in the round. If there is none, I will default to CBA and wait until the last step to figure out the most important offense.

Second, I will evaluate topicality, theory, kritik or any other pre-fiat arguments. For T and theory I will default to drop the argument. If you do proper weighing, I’m willing to evaluate substance first.

Third, evaluating links/link stories: I will evaluate both sides links to see how strong they are in the context of the round; this will determine to what extent your impact matters.

Fourth, comparing impacts (hopefully your weighing will tell me how I should do this); otherwise I’ll probably have to intervene.

Rebuttal

Rebuttal should Frontline. Turns and defense from first rebuttal not addressed in second rebuttal are conceded.

Rebuttal (especially second rebuttal) should not have long offensive overviews. I won't vote you down for this, but you'll lose speaks and I'll be very receptive to theory against this.

Summary

Don’t go for everything and weigh.

First summary should extend defense on whatever argument second rebuttal goes for.

Extensions need to be a good bit more than “extend this card.”

Final Focus

I will not vote off of any offense that was not in summary.

It is not too late to do some weighing (but I will be less receptive to it than weighing that has been consistently done since rebuttal or summary).

Card Calling

I’ll call for cards when they sound sketchy, when I am told to call for them, or when opposing cards directly contradict each other with no interaction.

Progressive Args

Theory

I prefer theory in shell format, and I am more receptive to it in outrounds and at bid tournaments (in other words don't use theory as a way of excluding people or getting an easy win).

Kritiks

Not super familiar with them but I've had an LDer explain them to me at least two times. I'll try my best.

Disclosure

0.5 extra speaks to any team that discloses their case on the NDCA PF wiki at least 30 minutes before the round.

Another 0.5 speaks to any team that flashes or emails me and their opponents their case and speech docs.

Make sure you tell me if you disclosed, so I can add the the extra speaks.

Misc.

Don't grill me if you didn't watch the round

If your opponents read a non-unique and a turn, the non-unique needs to be explicitly conceded in the next speech for the turn to go away.

If the round has absolutely no offense, I will default to the first speaking team.

Ask questions if you have any.

Anson Fung Hire

Alec Furnace Hire

Nick Malanga Hire 8 rounds

Andrew Nguyen Nguyen Hire

Last changed on Fri January 21, 2022 at 3:27 AM CDT

Debated LD at Strake Jesuit for 4 years. Broke at a few bid tournaments throughout my career. Read a lot of Util, T, and theory.

** Add me to the email chain: andrewnguyen22@utexas.edu. If using a USB, don't flash anything to me

TLDR

I'm fine with most arguments as long as it is warranted. Just don't say anything really offensive. If spreading, slow down on taglines and analytics. I will say "clear" or "slow" (doubtful) if necessary.

Read whatever you are comfortable with. I'll vote on anything. I default to comparative worlds, No-RVIs, competing interps. I like disclosure, so please disclose.

Don't be a doc debater (i.e. a DocBot) and just spread for 5/7 min off a pre-written doc. Make arguments specific to the round. Rebuttals should be more than card dumps. I should be able to hear something from you that explains how the turns or something interacts with your opponent's case.

Weigh arguments. Most debaters throw a ton of arguments at judges and do no work. I don't want to intervene, but if you don't do the in-round weighing, I will have to intervene. Don't make me do work for you in the round.

Please do not read theory or spread against a clearly less experienced debater. If you do, I will doc your speaks harshly.

Read something well-justified. Provide a clear weighing mechanism. I'm probably not the best judge to evaluate a highly intense FW debate. If it's a bit complicated, just explain it well and signpost exceptionally well. I also understand a bit of high theory (Deleuze, Derrida, Lacan), but I may not remember everything exactly, so just explain it well.

When reading framework justifications, please number them. Slow down on analytics if you want me to flow them.

Ks/K Affs

Provide good clear links (the more specific to the round, the better). Your ROB/ROTJ should be explicitly stated and well justified. (Also do not have a ROB of "vote for our method") Make ROB/ROTJ framing as a way to weigh/evaluate arguments. Ks/K Affs should be explicitly impacted under the ROB/ROTJ. Do not assume I will make connections for you. Alts should be clear about what they do. Please don't try to use the "academic" language from the K to confuse your opponent. If you really are a good debater, explain it in simpler terms and be able to explain it well in your own words.

Perm text should be explicitly clear with any and all benefits delineated.

Performance is good but should only be restricted during your speech time. Do not play music during your opponent's speech (I've seen this happen before). I would like to see creative ks but run them well. Non-T affs are great. Don't read POMO unless if you understand it. If reading a non-T aff, have a clear ballot story.

Try to contextualize your arguments before your 2AR/NR. I may hesitantly grant these contextualizations to the aff, but don't bank on this.

T/Theory

I'd vote on friv theory, but I'm more persuaded by true abuse in the round. If you want high speaks, have a relatively legit shell. Please do a lot of standard weighing. Don't need to extend paradigm issues if conceded. If your reading multi-planked shells, don't just rant about why each plank is individually bad. Rather, explain why these actions together are uniquely abusive in the instance of the round.

I'm more receptive to T justified by good evidence. Theory/T tricks are fine. I don't like voting on side bias arguments such as "negating is harder because of X," but if done well, I will still vote for you. I would rather the shells be as specific in the round as possible, but it is ok if you decide to read a generic shell.

I default to competiting interps, no RVIS, and drop the debater on most shells. Pls ask if you have any questions about this.

*Pls make sure your opponent violates the shell you are reading. I don't want to waste my time listening to a pointless shell.

LARP

Go for it. Do more line by line than simply reading cards. Analytics that help clarify the round is much better than more turns. Do lots of weighing to make the round really clear. If your reading cards, flesh out the argument in the 2NR/AR. The better your explanation, the better your speaks will be. I'm pretty neutral on the "conditionality good/bad" debate. I have voted both ways on PICs good.

I have yet to see a good LARP debate this semester. The biggest flaw is reading too much, going for everything in the 2NR/AR (COLLAPSE PLS), and not weighing. Perms need to be clear and well developed in the 1AR. Case debate needs to actually interact with the aff. Clarify and explain where on the flow turns interact with case. Please be organized with the order of your speech; I have a higher standard for signposting during LARP debates.

I love plan flaw. If your opponent screwed up, I would like to see you go for it. That being said, do not just do something because I say I like it. Do what you are good at.

Tricks

When reading tricks as aff, trigger the impact in the 1AR. I am much less inclined to vote for some trick from the underview randomly extended during the 2AR. Judging a tricks round can be very fun to watch but that depends on the quality and weighing of the args. Impact everything really well and I will vote for you. Please be upfront about reading tricks and don't be blatantly lying during CX. Any a prioris should be extremely well warranted for me to vote for them, else lose speaks and potentially get downed.

Burdens and NIBs should be well developed and warranted. Impacts and any necessary details should be explicitly delineated. Overall, I'm fine with most tricks and will more than likely vote for them.

FW-USFG (For CX)

If the aff isn't topical, the aff team needs to give benefits to why the aff is uniquely good. While on the neg side, any reason to be topical should be impacted out really well. I would rather you have this type of debate than read a topical version of the aff as a CP. You must do the work to impact it to fairness or education.

Speaks

Speaks are subjective and may deviate from this a bit, but this should be close to how I give out speaks.

*** Speaks will be determined by efficiency, quality of arguments, strategy, and weighing ability. ***

29.5-30: Really good/may win the tournament

29-29.5: Probably will get far/bid

28.5-29: Probably will break

28-28.5: Postive but won't break

27.5-28: Go even

26.5-27.5: Not great

Anything below 26.5 means you did something terrible in round.

Miscellaneous

Don't unnaturally stare at me during CX. It can make me feel uncomfortable. Try to be efficient with sending out the doc. I don't want to wait 20 min for your speech doc, just to delay the tournament. I won't time your prep. I assume you are keeping track of each other. Try to do all the offense contextualization by the 1AR/NR. I don't want something not said in earlier speeches to suddenly be blown up in the 2AR/NR.

Prep stops when you send the doc.

I will give extra speaks for sitting down early or having an amazing CX.

For policy, I guess open cross-x is ok. I don't really care. Also, I will not automatically kick things in policy just because you don't go for it in other speeches. Explicitly kick anything.

Here's my senior wiki so you can see get an idea of the type of debater I was:

Aff: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Nguyen%20Aff

Neg: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Nguyen%20Neg

(The neg page probably gives more info than the aff page)

Daniel Wang Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:20 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '18, University of Texas at Austin '22

Creator of the PF wiki

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit, Plano West

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email:dwang18@mail.strakejesuit.org

***Just my personal thought: "flow/tech" judges that refuse to vote on theory (esp disclosure) are worse than lay judges. ***

"Flow" judges or just people in general who refuse to vote in disclosure theory or other progressive arguments are the worst judges on the circuit and are carcinogenic to the activity (I said it). It's like saying I won't evaluate x case argument because I don't agree with it personally even if the debate is heavily one-sided in-round. All the arguments against it are just bad.

***Disclosure bad is the worst argument I've ever heard but if you win cause your opponents can't debate I guess I'll buy it***

Disclosure is also a true argument but tech > truth.

-Interp texts must be sent -- this includes CIs as well and is NOT negotiable

SECOND REBUTTAL/SUMMARY OBLIGATIONS -- A SCENARIO ANALYSIS:

The second rebuttal must respond to turns -- this is not negotiable. However, responding to defense in second rebuttal is optional. First summary obviously needs to extends turns if they want to go for it, but let's dive into some scenarios about defense.

Scenario A: The second rebuttal only responds to turns and not defense. This means that the first speaking team does not need to extend defense. Extending defense in the first summary doesn't matter because I will allow the second summary to frontline. You can read new evidence/warrants on their case, but defense extensions do not matter in the first summary. If you do extend defense, they will still be allowed to respond, but you can make clarifications or make new arguments if you desire.

Scenario B: The second rebuttal responds to turns and some pieces of defense. The first summary needs to extend those pieces of defense that were contested or else if the second summary extends frontlines from second rebuttal, I will view that as conceded and final focus will not be allowed to make new responses. The first-speaking team does not need to extend or mention defense that was not touched by the second rebuttal unless they want to make new arguments/read new evidence.

Scenario C: The second rebuttal responds to everything on the flow. The first summary needs to extend their pieces of defense that they want to go for. If they do not and the second summary extends their frontlines, then that is conceded by the first-speaking team.

- All evidence read including evidence in rebuttal or summary must be sent on an email chain. To save time please start the email chain before the round. Format the subject as "Blue Key 2021-- Round # -- AFF Team Code vs NEG Team Code" please.You have 1 minute to send the doc after ending prep -- virtual debate has been around for almost 2 years. It shouldn't take any longer to save, drag the doc into the email, and hit send. Anything longer means that you are stealing prep and you will be sad when you see your speaker points at the end. I want Word documents sent, not the awful thing that exists called Google Docs. It's 2021, please learn how to use Verbatim (it's been around forever)

- Because we are virtual, please try to be more clear. I will not flow along the email-chain but based on what you say. I will only use that to view evidence quality. If you're unclear or going too fast, I won't flow that argument, but I will go back and look if you cut out or there are technical difficulties on either my end or yours.

- You may not and I repeat MAY NOT spread any paraphrased evidence -- literally the worst thing to happen to this event. If you do, everything spread will be treated as analytics.

- Running progressive arguments badly is a good way to make me cry

- I have not prepped this topic at all -- do not assume I know common literature or arguments or acronyms

- VBI theory bad article is objectively false

- Is paraphrasing bad?? Probably-- but read theory if you think it is.

- Clarity of Impact is not a weighing mechanism

-Always True: Impacts such as unemployment or poverty or econ loss are not terminal impacts. Instead, they are internal links into something tangible which then can be a terminal impact.

Speaker point incentives are all under here:

-Disclosing on NDCA PF Wiki (good disclosure) -- +0.3/person + not risking a L on disclosure theory. Tell me if you disclose because I'm not checking every round. Must be at least 30 minutes before each round.

-Winning on disclosure theory -- very good speaks if you do it well

TKO: Technical Knockout.If you at any point in the debate believe that you have won the debate without a reasonable doubt i.e. a conceded theory shell, total domination on substance, zero extension from the other team, or a double turn, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team basically has no plausible routes to the ballot, I will give both speakers on the winning team aW-30 and the other team whatever they deserved. However, if I see some plausible ways for them to win that they can take (absent some hail mary whack route that they probably won't take) I will give you-1.5-3.5 pointsfrom whatever you deserved at that moment in the round. This is depending on how bad your judgement was/how close you were to being right. If you call it when getting destroyed, that's probably -3.5 points. Yes, this is somewhat subjective but really rewarding and fun and a great way to get high speaker points from me. If you call it after second FF, you're getting no higher than 26 speaks since the round is already over and you're a goon.

Generics:

- I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, won a few bid tournaments, qualified to TFA state 3 years and ended in semi-finals my senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year going 6-1 in prelims

- Please be pre-flowed before the round and flip before the round so that I don’t waste my time and it’s better for debate to know what side you’re debating before.

-Evidence must have the author’s last name (or institution if last name not available) and last 2 digits of the year i.e. “Wang 18.” If you don’t have this, then I do not consider it valid evidence under NSDA rules and debate in general.This means in rebuttal you need to cite the author’s year of publication and at least the author’s last name or institution if last name is not available.

-Evidence matters a lot to me.You don’t need evidence to make an argumentbut that argument is going to have a lot less weight especially when going against carded evidence.The “this is logical” argument doesn’t really fly with me especially on topics that are evidence heavy i.e. domestic or foreign policy. Do prep. I like rewarding teams that put hours of work into developing their case and building frontlines to every argument imaginable. I’d rather some decent warranted evidence than good, logical analytics. This means your rebuttals should be evidence-heavy and your cases should be evidence heavy as well. Frontlines should be a solid mixture of good evidence and good analytics.

-Few pieces of good evidence> lots of bad evidence. Smart analytics > blippy, garbage evidence. Decent evidence > most analytics.

TLDR for my Paradigm:

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism good.Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me that you're not good at debate.Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I probably lean a little more truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level but you still need to win the flow since I am overall tech > truth. (Read Below)

If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.Basically, I will still gladly buy disclosure theory even if an offer to disclose to you privately has been made before the round.

I'm a fan of the arg that teams that only selectively disclose when they're threatened with disclosure theory should be punished still. If they only disclose once or specifically to you, you can still read disclosure if you read the right interp.

If they say their coach will kick them off, you can still read it if you feel like it. There’s arguments against that argument (like a lot).

B.Conceded arguments are 100% true.There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Make sure to implicate your argument.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important.At the end of the round I may ask you to compile a doc of all relevant cards and send them.Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. It's 2020 and it's not that hard.You should disclose. Read below. There are some massive speaker point incentives to disclose.Evidence ethics is also the only time I will intervene. If you make evidence up, that's a trip to tabroom. Power-tagging severely (adding countries in, butchering stats) is probably a L with low-speaks.

D.Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for.The 2nd rebuttalmustrespond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.I do not require the first summary to extend defense if the second rebuttal did not address it but the 2nd summary needs to extend summary for it to be in final focus.If the 2nd rebuttal pulls a James Chen strategy, then 1st summary needs to frontline their responses and extend defense on case.

Please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred.

E.Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine.NSDA rules for these arguments are not a valid response in itself, but you can make it a standard. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there isn't real abuse. Friv theory is great and theory education is good.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are just not arguments. Just because you have a card doesn't mean there's a warrant as well.

G. If both debaters agree, I will allow you to use whatever is left in CX as prep time or the entirety of CX as prep instead of having to ask questions.THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS GRAND CX. You can't skip that lol for obvious reasons as Grand CX would cease to exist basically.

H. Blippy extensions are 100% if the argument is conceded. If they concede an entire contention for example, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only respond to the link or the impacts, just spend more time on that and quickly extend the conceded portions. Just make sure to do implications and weighing with the conceded args.

I. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

J.2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in either summary, GG. You've conceded a weighing argument and you better pray that you're winning some super strong link or impact defense on that argument to where it's zero-risk.

K.If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker pointbecause calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them.

L. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep after you stop the timer and say that you are done with prep. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. However, to encourage good evidence norms i.e. keeping your evidence organized and being able to access the evidence quickly,I will allow teams to prep while evidence exchanges are happening.Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks i.e. calling for 6 cards in one go when you clearly don't need to.

M. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it.

Theory:

-I love progressive arguments andDO NOTbelieve that they are ruining this activity. If anything, I think there raising the rigor of this game. As I state below somewhere, I love theory and read them on anything. You can read it as a way to win. Just don't be a massive prick about it if you read it as a way to win against novices. If you win and be courteous about it, I will give you what you deserve but if you're a prick, I'll deduct speaks but it won't affect my decision.

-I am extremely receptive to theory. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so if you do so graciously.

-I probably prefer shell format for theory since unlike policy, PF doesn't have the speech times to fully develop paragraph theory args so this usually causes a skew and leads to the actual theory debate happening in the final 20% of the round.

-Make sure you do strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's going to be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded, but may be useful to talk about them in an overview to frame the round.

-I believe that theory is aquestion of competing interpretationsmeaning that in-round abuse doesn’t matter but instead is a question of what norm you are promoting. However, this is just my belief but I can be persuaded by in-round abuse, etc.

- If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-Iwill notdefault that fairness and education are voters or the implication of theory. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs are my standard defaults. These are not hard defaults by any means and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments.For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess it also sucks to be you. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a standard shell format or policy-style. If you want to read T, please again read it as a shell format if you don't know how to read it policy-style and make sure to include a TVA.In PF I probably highly prefer shell format since there aren't as many speeches to develop the shell and blippy policy-style leads to the debate happening at the end of the round basically.You need standards/net benefits.Answer why is being non-T bad?Is there some ground, limits arg that you can make? Hell yes, there is. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

-Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics.

-RVIs:

-I am completely open to this debate. I believe that you could get a RVI or that you don't get a RVI. It all depends on how the debating goes.

-For teams responding to theory in the first summary: Proving a RVI here should be incredibly easy. Think please. This means that teams reading theory in 2nd rebuttal should be sure as hell that it's necessary and that they can debate the RVI layer well.

-I default to no RVI so if you want a RVI make sure you read it.

-If you read a shell, make sure you include the RVI debate in the paradigm issues section. Otherwise, you're going to be making RVI args kind of late into the debate and depending on how late they come up for the first time, it might be too late so it's better to be safe than sorry.

K's:

-I am not really well-read in critical literature so please refrain from running extremely complex Kritiks in front of me. Also, please actually understand your kritiks instead of pulling them from a random backfile that you found on the internet.

-I understand the basic stuff (security, colonialism, Foucault, cap, de-dev etc.). If you read a K, I high prefer a link specific to the AC. I don't want K's critiquing the resolution in general that you can read every single round. Those debates are stale and boring.

-K AFFs are also cool by me but they need to do something. Otherwise, I'm just gonna vote neg on presumption and I think we can all finish the round early. I wrote multiple K-AFFs throughout my career but just usually never broke them. If you want to read a K AFF in front of me, that's cool.

-K's that I Love: Cap and De-Dev. If you can run either one of these well and win, your speaks are gonna be good. Cap is probably good in real-life, but this is debate and I read cap occasionally and cut a bunch of cards for cap Ks so I understand both Cap and De-Dev pretty well. For De-Dev make sure you have a uniqueness/brink card.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (duh)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Santiago Weiland Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 25, 2020 at 2:04 PM EDT

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years and closed out Texas PF State in 2020. I’ve read a total of nothing on this topic.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Full disclosure I 100% copied this paradigm from my old partner Cooper Carlile (Bold = most important)

If you say "off the clock roadmap" I will give you a 25. just tell me what the structure is

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. 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.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read

also im good with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it.

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" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20." - Cara Day

I will also 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 speaking on a big stage." So have fun!

Login to Tabroom

The Bilo Bowl

2018 — Houston, TX/US

Public Forum Judges Paradigm List

Judges