"Back in my day, we only had two minutes to give our summaries!"

Hi I'm Allen and I'm an old third-year out who competed in PF all four years of high school (fun fact: I also competed in DI for three years). In my hey day, Ahana (my former partner) and I cleared at the TOC and a number of other cool nat circuit tournaments. Two years ago, I coached Dalton CY (best team on the circuit don't @ me) and Capitol Debate's travel team. I founded PF Videos and used to be a mod of /r/Debate. I'm no longer involved in debate, sans for judging occasionally.

Outside of debate, I'm a third-year at UChicago studying international political economy with a focus in East Asia, Southeast Europe, and U.S. foreign policy. I judged the NFU topic at Tradition in early November, but I'm not familiar with the "latest arguments" on this topic. I do have a strong academic and professional background in IR and U.S.-China relations. If you're citing international relations theory (anything like MAD or nuclear revolution theory or even realism), I'll probably be familiar with what you're talking about. Biggest issue I've seen on this topic is the lack of warranting, especially on deterrence arguments from the con.

For those of you who had me as a judge previously: I probably haven't changed much. I've probably become a better judge than I was last year because I'm not in deep with the community (i.e. I don't know the top teams on the circuit this year, I don't have hard opinions on how debaters should debate, and I don't personally know the topic arguments or lit, so I will have very few implicit biases walking into the round).

For those of you who haven't had me before, or want a refresher:

1. Tech > Truth. Most debate arguments are BS (we all know it) and I don't have a problem with smart high schoolers coming up with creative or original arguments. I've completely suspended my belief for this tournament.

2. I love argument comparison! This can take the form of (but does not exclude other methods of comparison) doing impact framing/meta weighing. Please don't forget about reading/extending internal links and terminal impacts.

3. My default beliefs for the round are:

a) second rebuttal should frontline

b) first summary should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined (so, if the second rebuttal frontlines, the first summary should interact with that frontlining if they plan to go for anything from rebuttal in final focus); if second rebuttal doesn't frontline, the first speaking team can extend defense from rebuttal to final focus

c) no new arguments in final focus (unless the first final focus is answering something new in second summary)

d) the judge only calls for cards if their is a dispute over them or a debater tells me to call for them

e) the judge presumes for the first speaking team

But, debaters are always free to read theoretical justifications in the round to tell me otherwise!

4. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

5. I love fast debate, but have Auditory Processing Disorder, which means I sometimes don't immediately comprehend everything I hear during speech. Thus, I may ask for clarifying questions after your speech about a tag or warrant I didn't catch in your speech (I'm not intervening, I'm trying to do the best that I can to give you a fair round). Please give me (and your opponents) a speech doc if you go above 300 words per minute.

6. I start at a 29 for speaker points. Points go up for good strategic decision on the flow. Points go down for miscut cards, ghost/no extensions, and bad behavior in round.

If you haven't gathered, I'm a funny (I tell myself this) and sarcastic (other people tell me this) individual. The following is a joke:

I will give you +0.1 speaker points for every TableTote height setting used in round above the first. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check this out. (this is a joke)

Automatic 30 for a Coke Zero (not a Coke Zero Sugar) or freshly made risotto (recipe below).

Allen's Signature Parmesan Risotto

Ingredients

-3.5 cups chicken broth

-3 cups water

-4 tablespoons unsalted butter

-1 medium onion, finely diced or minced

-2 cups dry white wine

-2 cups Arborio rice

-1.5 cup Parmesan cheese

-Ground black pepper (white pepper, if you're feeling spunky)

-Penzy's Italian Herb Mix (which consists of oregano, basil, parsley, marjoram, thyme, and rosemary)

Instructions

1. Bring the broth and water to a simmer in a large saucepan (I use a Dutch Oven) over medium-high heat. Reduce the heat to the lowest possible setting after the broth reaches its boiling point. Keep on the backburner.

2. Melt the butter in a 4-quart saucepan over medium heat. Once the foaming subsides (DON'T BURN THE BUTTER), add the onion and 1/2 teaspoon of salt and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onion is very soft and translucent, about 9 minutes. Add the rice and cook, stirring frequently, until the edges of the grains are transparent, about 4 minutes. Add 1 cup of the wine and cook, stirring frequently, until the wine is completely absorbed by the rice, about 2 minutes. Add 3 cups of the warm broth and, stirring frequently, simmer until the liquid is absorbed and the bottom of the pan is dry.

3. Add more of the broth, 1/2 cup at a time, as needed, to keep the pan bottom from becoming dry; cook, stirring frequently (every 1 or 2 minutes), until the grains of the rice are cooked through but still somewhat firm in the center, 10 to 12 minutes. Stir in 1 cup of the cheese and the remaining wine. Season with the herbs, salt, pepper, and additional cheese, to taste (DON'T OVER-PEPPER! WHITE PEPPER IS ESPECIALLY STRONG).

Honestly, debaters focus too much on persuasion through auditory perception. I'd like for there to be a debate event where we use olfaction and gustation as tools for persuasion. However, PF isn't that event, and you probably weren't going to get the kitchen/utensils/wine necessary to make the risotto during a tournament. So, we're back to just debating. But you should try making this risotto! It's very good, and everyone in my residential house in college loves it (except when I over pepper/burn the butter).

Hi I'm Tatiana Butkevits I have competed in PF for 4 years as a second speaker for Boca High and now I'm a freshman at SMU.

Speed:

I'm good with speed if you're clear

I also can't write super fast so if you're gonna spread please give me a speech doc.

Speaker Points/ conduct:

I'd say I'm a flow judge but I do believe that the power of persuasion still holds a role in debate so while it is mostly what you say I do think it is important how you say it.

However I really hate speaker points. They are so subjective so congratulations everyone gets a 30 !!

...Unless you are: misconstruing evidence, not weighing, excessively rude etc. (the worse/ more frequent the offense the more you're docked).

That being said I enjoy entertaining debates that maybe are aggressive and include sarcasm, puns, etc. as long as you're not yelling over your opponent, belittling them, and/ or attacking them instead of their of argument.

I do however have the unpopular opinion that there is an issue with the babying of women in debate. I will not dock you more if you are rude to a girl than if you are rude to a boy. JUST DON'T BE RUDE TO ANYONE but there is no reason to think that you have to treat a girl different in cross/ baby them. I find this push and practice in the debate community very patronizing because I think and know women can hold our own.

Types of argumentation:

Keep me interested! My partner and I ran some interesting interp arguments, R.O.B., and even Ks so I am somewhat familiar, however I am not a policy debater so please explain unique/ progressive stuff clearly! For ex. not super familiar with theory so if you're going to run it please run it well and make it easy for me to understand.

As much as I love hearing interesting and unique things I also believe that stock, but super true arguments are what really win a lot of the time, so don't be afraid to run something super stock either.

Rebuttal:

Give me a roadmap only if your doing something out of the ordinary

You do not have to respond to responses in second speaking rebuttal; however, I do find it smart (that’s a big advantage of speaking second) and it makes for a cleaner summary.

Second half of the round:

Although I was second speaker I really do find this to be the most important speech in the round and I don’t just say that to make 1st speakers feel important (love you Philipp).

1st Summary does NOT need to extend terminal defense unless it was responded to but definitely extend offense if you want it to be evaluated in FF

COLLAPSE do NOT go for everything! You will NOT win everything but pick what you think is best that you are winning and convince me that it is.

Please don’t just extend impacts but also warrants and weigh!! I cannot stress that enough weighing should be established no later than summary!

I will notice if you bring new stuff in FF.. so don’t.

Weighing:

Weigh Warrants tell me "prefer this over this because....."

Weigh Evidence

Weigh Impacts

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

Other Misc.

I really hate those obnoxious debate timers so if you use it fine but don’t have it count down.

Time yourselves and opponents (I probably won’t)

Also, I will pay a lot of attention to time.

I will call for evidence if you tell me or I feel it’s necessary

- Don’t be a jerk about evidence! Highlight the part they want and don’t prep while anyone is finding stuff

Paradigm:

I debated for 5 years so I can handle tech speed etc. Personally, I've never found paradigms very useful. My best advice would be to just debate the way you're most accustomed to and you'll probably be most likely to win by ballot anyway. But, if you want the specifics of my preferences, read below:

Things I like:

1. logical analysis
1. smart analytics + evidence always beat evidence. blipping a bunch of evidence is not very strategic / convincing.
2. Front-lining in second rebuttal
1. Given the new summary times, it would make 1st FF basically impossible if you waited until 2nd Summary to do all of your frontlines for 3 min. I can't force you to frontline in 2nd rebuttal but frontlines you wait longer to make will be given less weight, and I will have a lower bar for what counts as a good response in the 1FF
3. Weighing
1. You do don't need to rely on buzzwords like "probability" and "timeframe" just make sure to spend time directly comparing offense

Things I don’t like:

1. New contentions read in 2nd rebuttal
1. They’re abusive, given that summary is only 2 min. They’re also usually fairly bad arguments but only strategic because they’re tough to respond to so late. These are usually disguised as “offensive overviews” or “Disads”. I will be very hesitant to vote on these.
2. This also means if you read a tiny turn in 2nd rebuttal and blow it up in 2nd FF I will be much less inclined to vote on it.
2. Theory / K / progressive arguments
1. I will evaluate them, but I have a low bar for what counts as a good response to these arguments. Also I never properly learned about these arguments so if the round devolves into a theory round I’ll (probably) make a bad decision.
3. Over-competitiveness
1. A kind of vague category which includes things like trying to reexplain arguments to me as you hand me evidence, being rude in CX, or stealing prep time while you call for cards.

Public Forum (See below for LD Specifics)

I debated for Mission San Jose High School from 2013-2017 and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and will only be paying attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on arguments if they are extended in both the summary and the final focus.

- No new evidence is permitted in the second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from an initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses and criticisms of evidence are fine.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your evidence.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory and Kritiks, as long as they are well warranted.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round.

- If you plan to discuss sensitive issues such as suicides, depression, sexual assault, etc., please issue trigger warnings at the top of your case.

- Please be nice.

P.S. It's true, I stole this from Max (my better half)

LD Stuff:

- I have not watched circuit LD in years, so please don't go faster than ~225 wpm while speaking extemporaneously. If you are reading off of a speech doc, I really don't care.

- I love a good K debate, but many K debates tend to not be good ones. If you cannot conversationally explain your K to someone you know outside of debate, then you probably don't understand it and aren't using it in a compelling way in the round.

- That being said, I am still a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. Don't shy away from running anything in front of me, but if you go for it, it must be clearly explained and implicated in your last rebuttal.

If you have concerns, you can reach me at keshavkundassery99@gmail.com

I did public forum for three years, and this year will be my fourth. Now that leads you to make some assumptions about me: namely that I am a good flower. Never assume.

Update: I learned how to flow!

I describe myself as a moderately flow judge. I should be able to get most of the round, and speed should not be too much of an issue as long as you are clear and signpost. Signposting and clarity are far more important to my flow than speed. If you are gonna go fast, make damn sure I know where you are on the flow. In a pf round, if you have good word economy, you shouldn't even need to go that fast.

Defense. Don't need it in summary (unless it's been responded to and you want to extend It later on). Defense is sticky. Definitely need to respond to your opponents defense. Rebuttal --> FF defense extensions are okay AS LONG AS IT IS A CLEAN EXTENSION. Defense will be more persuasive if it is in both but summary is a tough speech. If you want me to evaluate turns, they have to be in both summary and FF.

Notes About the Second Rebuttal

1. Do not read me a new unrelated contention. I'll flow it and will evaluate it, but if the other team calls you out for being abusive, or puts a few responses on it, I will be inclined to agree with them.

2. Answer turns from first rebuttal. Answer all offense coming out of first rebuttal. Start weighing for me, the second half of the round is starting to shape up.

On Arguments:

Alternative positions: Nah. Not about it (try it if you really want but make it super easy to understand). I default util, its the wave.

If you can warrant, I can buy it. With that being said, if the argument sounds dumb, I will be inclined to buy common sense responses.

Win your links and weigh your impacts.

Evidence:

Be prepared to share it with everyone, including me should I ask for it. If you tell me to, I will call evidence. If you blatantly miscut evidence, and I can tell, I will call it. If I think your evidence is too good to be true, I will call it.

Weighing: Weigh for me. Do a lot of comparative analysis. Tell me why your link is better. Tell me why your impact is bigger. Otherwise I decide, and people tell me I'm stupid.

Extend warrants before impacts in both summary and final focus. It is far more interventionist for me to extend your warrant for you than it is for me to just drop the impact that you went for without a warrant. If you are winning the warrant debate you are probably wining the round.

No one has ever won crossfire by just straight overpowering their opponent. Talking loudly doesn't make you good at debate.

Be funny. Be Kind. I always would appreciate coffee/water or food.

#WORLDSTAR

- If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being obnoxious ) you are expected to yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and you're partner each get 1.0 added to your speaks. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get deducted 0.1 speaks for interrupting cross.

- I will be updating my paradigm as the year progresses to track all the #WORLDSTAR moments in rounds below:

UPDATE 2/2023: I have not coached or judged circuit PF in 2-3 years. The following paradigm was written in 2019 (I think). Most of what is below still holds true but some of my opinions and preferences have changed since then. Please ask me questions before the round and I will be happy to explain things there.

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

I debated for Mission San Jose High School for 4 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior year. I currently coach Lake Highland Prep.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered here, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. You also may run the risk of too much speed hurting your speaker points.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense for it to be in final focus, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly. If you're worried this may distract you, I will not do so at your request.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it's never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory arguments and Kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments. I'm not a fan of pre-fiat Ks at all. You have to do a really good job if you want to run one in front of me, and I'll probably still tank your speaks.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm but I personally dislike 'risk of offense' arguments because I think they allow lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity.

- If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, I would advise issuing a trigger warning beforehand. If you don't know how to properly issue a content warning, ask me before the round. I believe debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Be nice to each other!

If you have concerns, reach me at maxwu@uchicago.edu *now: maxwu@berkeley.edu.

Public Forum:

How I make my decision:

- I will evaluate rounds based completely on the flow.

- If I am to evaluate any arguments in the round they must be in both Summary and Final Focus. That means I need both the links and impacts of the arguments you are going for, that means I need the full story of how I get from Point A (Voting Pro/Con) to Point B (your impacts).

- I will only evaluate concessions/important points made in crossfire if you point them out in speeches.

- If you do not weigh then I will be forced to weigh the arguments myself, so give me weighing on your arguments.

- I do not require the first speaking team to extend defense (attacks on the opponents case) in summary but I strongly recommend the extension of turns in summary if you want me to vote on them.

- You don't have to point out that your opponent dropped certain arguments/responses because I will know that based on the flow, but I would appreciate if you acknowledge it in a speech anyways.

- I will not evaluate any new arguments made in Final Focus unless they are in direct response to something new brought up your opponent at a very late point in the round like second summary.

Evidence:

- If you call for a card I expect you to say something about it in the next speech or cross.

- If both teams go back and forth too much about what a card does or doesn't say I may call for it myself at the end of the round if it is important for my decision.

- I really don't care for accusations of a source's bias or credibility without a proper reason for why specifically what the source is saying is wrong. I need a refutation of the underlying logic of a card to in order for me to discount it.

Progressive Arguments:

- I'm not a big fan of progressive arguments such as theory, K's and the like. Unless you put one of these arguments in a form that is intuitive and very understandable, I will likely not vote for you because I believe that such arguments distract from the educational value of debate.

Notes:

- If you don't signpost correctly (telling me where you are on the flow when making an argument) and the flow gets messed up then that's on you.

Club Debate:

How I make my decision:

- Although I will certainly take presentation style into account, I will vote primarily off of the flow and weighing mechanisms brought up in the round.

- If something significant occurs in CrossX then I expect you to mention that in a speech.

- I will not flow anything you say in a speech that does not fall with in the scope of that speech's purpose. What this means is that in the attack speech or the rebuttal, I will only flow responses to your opponents case, and likewise in the Defense speech, I will only flow frontlines (defending your case against your opponents responses in rebuttal).

- If you do not weigh then I will be forced to weigh the arguments myself, so give me weighing on your arguments.

- I strongly recommend that you extend your links and impacts of your arguments in defense as well as summary if you want me to vote off of them. If you don't, I may feel your warranting is insufficient for me to consider your arguments even if they are well explained in constructive.

Some Notes:

- Although you cannot verify evidence in Club Debate, if I have a major suspicion that a team is just making up evidence out of thin air that does not exist I may call for it. Don't make up evidence; I will drop you if you do because it ruins debate as an educational activity just so you can lie your way to winning.

- For my opinion on Progressive Arguments refer to my PF paradigm.

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook, email me (kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com), or ask me before the round.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. If some form of abuse or violence occurs in round and I don't immediately react, please feel free to FB PM me or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com. [I say this because as a cis het woman, I may not be able to pick up on certain types of violence and I believe debaters should determine their level of safety and/or comfort

General Stuff:

- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could trigger someone

- use people's pronouns or gender neutral language in the case pronouns aren't disclosed

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary abusive

- Be nice

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. Feel free to FB message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary. First summary should frontline turns

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision

Progressive Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round or you feel unsafe, please feel free to use these forms of argumentation. Just explain your argument well. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!