How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well: http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html. tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

Don't spread but speed is alright.

+1 Speaks

If you pronounce my full name (Hemanth Bharatha Chakravarthy) right in the first try, I'll bump you up by 1 point. Alternatively, if you cite evidence about something that happened in the Tamil community in India, I'll give you +1.

Updated Feb 2019

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I’m now a senior on the Harvard team.

My goal is to write RFDs based entirely on comparison made by the debaters in the round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to give me direct comparisons and weighing. I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary. Plan to slow down for any short analytics, interpretations, or arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time around.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have specific questions.

Misc:

- Because the Harvard tournament has a difficult 4-2 break, I will push in-round speaks in a direction that indicates whether I think you should make the break based on the quality of that round.

- If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it.

- Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make any effort, I'll be very unhappy.

- I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments -- for instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to vote on it.

- Evaluating theory is most straightforward to me under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but you should be clear about what you want me to do with it.

- I will be sad if you use CX for a series of clarification questions, and annoyed if you use it for prep. I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.

- Debate is a game—you should make arguments you enjoy and feel good about. If that's not working out, think about reaching out to someone to check in.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

Noah DiAntonio

Update as of February 2023

I would take everything below as useful but not perfect information, because as I get further from my time as a debater I can tell that my preferences are changing and my ability to judge super technically is decreasing (I am not a "lay" judge but I am also not actively thinking about debate as often as I used to.) I have also been judging at the rookie/novice/JV level lately, so these comments are especially tailored to debaters at those levels.

The feedback that I always give debaters is that no matter what argument you are running, what matters is that you tell a compelling story about your advocacy and what voting for you means. That entails characterizing what the world looks like now, and how it will change with the passage of the plan (or CP or alt). The key to doing this is 1) having overviews in all speeches starting with the 2AC which tell me your story, 2) extending your arguments in every speech, even the ones your opponents don't address (that isn't to say you can't kick arguments, you can, but arguments you are not kicking need to be explicitly extended), and 3) contextualizing your evidence in relation to this story you are telling me. Evidence is the content that fills out the story, but it isn't the story itself. It is how you bring all the evidence together and explain it in your own words that makes the story. It is also important that as you do this, you tell me, preferably very directly, to which arguments should lead me to vote for you and why.

I also strongly advise debaters to focus on direct clash with opposing arguments. The best debaters are able to respond to opposing arguments while also telling their own story (see above), but if you need to spend two minutes telling me your story and then three minutes just refuting your opponents arguments on a line-by-line basis, that's great too. But don't drop your opponents' arguments!

So, in short: Tell me why you should win and directly tell me that what your opponent said is wrong, and you are already most of the way there!

One other thing I have noticed and want to comment on. When doing impact calculus, it isn't just a time to say that your impact matters. It is really an opportunity for direct comparison between two impacts. Let's take the classic example of nuclear war vs. climate change. Both teams say they will lead to extinction. Here is what I, on the nuclear war side, might say:

• Probability and Magnitude: Climate change is slow and humanity has time to adapt. Nuclear war is immediate, and there's no adapting to a rapid-onset nuclear winter. Furthermore, nuclear winter makes the entire earth uninhabitable, while climate change will make some areas worse but others more habitable, and in those areas people will certainly survive. That means that the probability of nuclear war leading to a full human extinction is higher, and thus it is the higher magnitude impact as well.
• Timeframe and Reversibility: The impacts of climate change are potentially reversible due to scientific advances in the coming decades. Once a nuke is launched, there is no going back. Our impact happens first and makes solving climate change impossible. Vote to prevent a nuclear war now to allow humanity the chance to fix climate change.

Now, that is far from perfect, but I write that to demonstrate that real comparison between impacts is what impact calculus is all about. Do this well, and it will be very advantageous for you.

Update for NSDA Nats 2021

Haven't judged on this topic yet.

Open to all types of arguments. Strong warrants are key.

I prefer realistic link chains. The more ridiculous, the higher your threshold of explanation will be.

Also, on Kritiks, I didn't read them and am not as experienced with them, but I like them and I have a strong background in social theory (I studied it in college) especially Marxism, Feminism, and Foucualt. However, that means that I am going to want you to explain even MORE clearly because I will probably be better able to tell if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And for answering a Kritik (on either side) I appreciate engagement with the substance of the K.

Paradigm as of Harvard 2020

tl;dr:

1) Don't go too fast.

2) Run anything, but explain it well.

3) I don't debate anymore or keep up with what is going on in debate. Do with that what you will.

Experience:

I did policy and extemp for four years on a local Missouri circuit. I competed at NSDA and NCFL nationals in policy. Now I debate Parli for Harvard. I have judged all types of debate as well as multiple events, but only on the local level.

Here are my preferences:

LD:

I debated LD for the first two years of high school, (once again, local level), but I am not up on the current trends in circuit LD. However, I do know the basics (speech times and order, the resolution, etc.).

However, I am essentially a policy debater.

Speed:

I (generally) did not spread when I debated in high school. I'm fine with you spreading in front of me, just realize that I am not as trained as some of your judges may be when it comes to flowing spreading. For my comprehension, I would recommend that you slow down and emphasize your most important warrants. Basically, if you want me to REALLY understand something, slow down a bit.

I also would prefer if you slow down for blippy arguments if you want me to be able to flow them.

I really don’t want to have to tell you to slow down, but I will yell “clear” or “slow” if I must.

Value/Value Criterion:

I believe that V/VC debates aren't really a thing anymore in circuit LD, but when I did LD I debated that way. I won't care if you have a value construct or not, but I do like those debates.

Philosophy:

I'm not knowledgeable about much philosophy, so make sure to just explain your warrants well if you are trying to get me to adopt a certain ethical framework. I won't need deep explanation for more basic things like util or rejecting oppression, but if you think the philosophy in your case wouldn't make sense to a lay-person, explain it well to me.

Update as of 2019: I’ve read a bit more philosophy now. I have a light understanding of the social contract theorists and a decent understanding of Marx.

Plans:

Plans are fine in LD. I even think PF should have plans to be honest.

Advantages/Disads:

I like them. I was mostly a ADV/DA debater when I did policy, so I will probably intuitively understand your ADV/DA. I will be happier voting for a DA if you do a lot of weighing against the aff impacts (and vice versa). I'm also partial to uniqueness take-outs and I love turns.

Also, I love movements disads. If you run one, you aren't guaranteed to win but you will make me smile.

Counterplans:

I didn't run too many, but I really like them. I will default to a counterplan being theoretically legit unless the aff says otherwise. I like when the 1NC counterplan shell includes a sentence or two about why they are competitive, but that isn't required, I will assume competition until the aff perms.

Speaking of perms, I am fairly liberal when it comes to what I allow. Simply telling me a perm is intrinsic/severance won't matter unless you develop that into a well-impacted theory argument. I also want the aff, when making a perm, to actually say what they mean by the perm. I can guess what "perm do both" means in the context of this aff and CP, but just spelling it out leaves no room for confusion.

Kritiks:

I was not a K debater. I am happy to see and vote for Ks, but just recognize that if you are running something more complex than cap, I'm going to need you to explain things in more detail. What I most want to see out of the neg if they are running a K is 1) strong anti-perm arguments and 2) really well-developed alt solvency. Those are the areas where I am usually most skeptical of Ks, and thus you're going to want to be strong on those fronts.

Also, the old “kick the alt and go for a non-uq DA” line is fine by me, but make sure the impact is worse than the status quo in this case.

Condo:

I think it is fine, though if you win the condo bad debate I will think condo is not fine for the purposes of the round. If you are really spreading out the aff, I will give them some leeway in the 2AR. I'm not going to vote for completely new 2AR arguments, but I'll probably accept some new explanation.

Aff condo is not okay (Kicking advantages is obviously fine, but kicking out of your advocacy is not, unless you have some REALLY compelling reason otherwise).

Topicality:

I like T a lot. I will be happiest if you don't just throw blippy arguments at me and instead invest some time into the standards debate. I also want you to impact your voters for me. Fairness and education (and your other voters) matter for a reason, I want to hear those reasons.

I'm not really into T being an RVI, but if you win that it is I'll vote on it.

Slow down for T.

Theory:

Apart from T, I liked Inherency and Solvency Advocate theory when I was a debater. I will pretty much listen to any theory if you warrant it well. See what I said on Topicality.

I'm not familiar with what theory is being run on the circuit, but I think theory debates are fun so if you just explain it well you should be fine.

Slow down for theory.

Other:

Being told how you want me to vote in your rebuttal will make it more likely that I will vote that way.

If you are rude, I will dock your speaker points.

If you are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic or anything else of that nature in round, I will dock your speaker points and you will lose the round. If it is incredibly egregious I may end the round, but please, how about no one makes this relevant.

Contact:

If you have questions, you can email me at noahdiantonio@college.harvard.edu.

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

Hello, I have not judged this semester. Please be kind to each other.

I am old and cannot flow speed particularly well but will do my best to keep up.

Theory is okay if it checks abuse, but I don't like it if it's frivolous. I will always caution that I may not follow Ks as well as you do, so read them at your own risk.

I will call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and reserve the right to disregard entire arguments if the evidence is particularly miscut.

Have fun!

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

https://gph.is/2HThgly

I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: quentinmaxwellh@gmail.com for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

I competed in Parli and Extemp for Davis Senior High School (graduated 2017) and currently do American Parli and British Parli at Harvard. I've debated at least once or twice in every major format, though I've historically leaned towards traditional limited-prep events. I deeply appreciate when debaters bring me snacks.

If you have any questions/concerns/memes hit me up at benjaminhoffnerbrodsky@college.harvard.edu I'm also open to asking any paradigm-clarifying questions before round starts.

As an overview, I'm open to evaluating the debate you want to have and am open to voting on pretty much any type of argument. My speaks policy, however, does have some more complex preferences based on the type of debate I want to reward on the circuit -- all of that is explained below. My goal is to minimize judge intervention and bias as much as possible. That being said, I will intervene when necessary/I'm not told what to think/there is inadequate weighing. Similarly, because I'm a human/have done and watched PF I have some pretty well justified pre-conceived notions. With rare exceptions, I'm generally open to those being challenged but will default to them if unaddressed. An incomplete list of those prior assumptions is also below.

Speed: It is my preference that debaters not exceed a reasonable speed -- think 1.5x normal conversion speed -- though I will do my best to follow if debaters choose to exceed this. If you're talking so fast that I can't hear you I will say "clear" a maximum of two times as a request to slow down.

Theory: My background is in more traditional debate but I'm receptive to theory/K/performative arguments. That being said, I prefer debate that is topical and speaker points will reflect that difference unless I'm given persuasive reasons why theory is necessary in this case or it's really well executed.

Weighing: Please do it. More than you think you need to. If weighing goes uncontested I will use it even if it is unwarranted. If no weighing is given by either team I will use my intuition to somewhat arbitrarily decide what is most important. This is probably the easiest way to lose a round.

Final Focus: I take a strict view of the final focus: if the argument isn't in FF, I won't evaluate it.

Evidence: Evidence is pretty cool, you should use it. I have a strong preference for direct quotes over paraphrasing. I also take evidence misuse very seriously; if I find out that you have made up a card, added meaningful words/information to the card, "creatively" cut a card in a way that changes the meaning, or mis-cite a statistic, I will not hesitate to give a round loss and, for serious violations, report it to tab. 90% of the time the card you make up wasn't going to win you the round anyways, it's not worth it. I will call for cards at the end of the round if it is requested by a debater or if there is an obvious violation/the topic of evidence is disputed.

A few facts about the round that I take to be true unless told otherwise (but am open to contesting in some cases):

-Util is trutil

-Aff defends likely interpretation/implementation

-Neg defends squo

-Counter-advocacies aren't a real thing - you need to prove solvency/can't borrow aff fiat power

-Murder is bad/life is good

-Acquiring money is good

-Minimizing risk is good

-There is no God/Gods

-A good thing happening tomorrow is better than the same good thing happening a year from now (there is some discount factor/chance of death/randomness)

-A big good thing is better than a small good thing

-A small good thing is better than no good thing

-A good thing happening to n+1 people is better than a good thing happening to n people

-Solipsism is false

-The winner of a round is the team that best accesses the impacts that matter the most

-Fairness in debate is good

-Things that happen in the theoretical debate matter

-Education stemming from debate matters

Factors that impact speaker points but not necessarily the outcome of the round:

-Bringing me food

-Effective use of cross-fire

-Being excessively rude to your opponents

-Bold strategic decisions that payoff

-Sticking to topical arguments over theory

-Good word economy

-Creative turns and refutations

-Spicy but effective evidence indicts

-Clear and repeated weighing

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

Competed in PF primarily on the Texas circuit with a little bit of national circuit exposure at NSDA Nationals and the TOC.

I'm tab; I'm open to any (inoffensive) argument as long as it's well-warranted.

I can handle speed as long as you aren't spreading. Clarity is key and if I can't flow it I can't evaluate it.

I strongly prefer that the second speaking team address, at the very least, all offense on both sides of the flow (opponent's case and turns on their own case). Ideally, the second speaking team should also address some critical pieces of defense on their side, but it is definitely acceptable to frontline defense in second summary. If the first speaking team doesn't extend turns in first summary, the second speaking lucks out and I can't penalize them for not defending their case in second rebuttal. I do not require terminal defense to be extended in the first summary, so the first speaking team can extend that from rebuttal to final focus.

All offense that you want to collapse on needs to be in the summary speeches. That said, however, you don't need to go for everything. Just focus on what you need in order to win the ballot.

When making extensions, please try to extend both the link and the impact.

Make sure to have good weighing, organization, and collapsing. Please signpost! Tell me exactly where you on the flow you are addressing so I don't have to waste time looking for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up flowing less of your speech.

Weighing your arguments is incredibly important. I will do my best to avoid any intervention whatsoever, but if you aren't going to weigh properly, I may be forced to do the weighing myself. This is very risky for you.

Given the ubiquity of sketchy evidence in PF, I take evidence ethics very seriously. Feel free to paraphrase evidence, but do so with integrity. Egregious misrepresentations of evidence will disappoint me greatly, and will damage your speaker points and likely my decision to vote for your side.

I will call for contested evidence if debaters make it clear they want me to call for that evidence. I may also call pieces of evidence that I suspect may be misrepresented.

Witty, inoffensive humor will likely benefit your speaker points!

Feel free to ask any further questions prior to round.

I am an Australian judge (currently an active member of the Harvard College Debate Team) most familiar with the Australs/World Schools format and spent 8 years over the course of my adolescence debating in this format. I will pick you up if you are reasonable and warrant well, and will drop you if you run a case that is very inaccessible or technical.

Note here that I WILL intervene if I think that something has been said in the context of the debate that is so unreasonably far-fetched that it is clearly empirically incorrect, and drop it (regardless of whether or not this has been refuted --> applies mostly to formats lenient toward intervention such as World Schools and less to APDA unless that is your collapse).

I will always buy practical arguments over principle.

Do not assume that I am an expert on the topic you are discussing, and spell it all out for me, including specific weighing.

Finally, don't be rude. It's against the spirit of debate generally and doesn't do much in the way of creating an environment conducive to making everybody feel comfortable.

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

Have fun, and best of luck!

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

TL;DR — Tech > truth. Please don't make me do work. Be nice :)

Background: I debated in public forum for Harker for 4 years. If you have any questions about my preferences listed below, please don't hesitate to ask before the round.

How I vote:

1. I look at the framework debate and consider the offense under the winning framework. Please settle this early in the round if possible.

2. I evaluate the easiest paths to the ballot first. This is where it helps to (1) have a smart strategy throughout the round that makes the narrative easier, and (2) explain warrants well.

3. Weigh. Do as much of this as you can. Clear up the clash on important issues and weigh your impacts, because I will do neither of these for you. Your goal is to make it as easy as possible for me to locate your best path to the ballot, and to essentially write my RFD for me through your weighing analysis. I'll be upset if you make me clear up clash or do my own weighing analysis, and your speaks will decrease even if I vote for you.

4. If the debate is a complete wash, I default to the first-speaking team (not con/squo) because I believe in the structural advantage of the second team.

Specifics:

- Speed. Go for it — I'll be able to follow, but I'll let you know if you aren't clear. If I feel that you're abusing this (think borderline spreading), then I'll lower your speaks but I won't vote against you for it. Clarity and quality of argumentation are always the most important.

- Arguments. Any type of argument is fine as long as it's topical and not blatantly offensive. I try to be tabula rasa, and I might bump up your speaks if you run creative arguments that fit a well-warranted narrative.

- Extensions. All offense you want me to evaluate must be in the summary and the final focus. You can extend terminal defense from rebuttal straight into the final focus and I'll evaluate it, but I still prefer it being in the summary as well. Every extension should include (1) evidence, (2) explanation of warrant, (3) impact, and (4) how I should weigh the argument (especially in the final focus). Clear signposting is critical.

- Evidence. Minimum citation is author and date (institution is also nice). I dislike calling for evidence, but I'll do it if (1) something seems suspicious, or (2) you explicitly tell me to call for the other team's evidence. I'll drop any team with a blatant evidence violation, but if it's something like sketchy debate-math then it's better to just point it out in speech. Have your cards ready: I'll drop a card and lower your speaks if you can't produce it within 2 minutes. Don't call for cards that you won't use. When exchanging evidence, do it right away and don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Crossfire. I don't evaluate it, so you need to extend concessions in later speeches. Ask real questions and keep answers brief if possible; don't try to fit a new speech or I'll lower speaks.

- Theory. I don't have a nuanced familiarity with theory debates, but I will evaluate it if you overexplain how I should weigh the argument in the round. Generally, all arguments are fair game unless blatantly offensive. If you think an argument is abusive, it's better to explain this to me as a response and I'll weigh the argument less, but I lean away from voting directly off of theory arguments. In short, only run it if you really know what you're doing, and even then, use it with caution.

How to get good speaks (in order):

1. WEIGH. The easier my vote is, the higher your speaks are.

2. Signpost. Make flowing as easy as possible.

3. Have a strong narrative / strategy throughout the round.

4. Bonus: creative arguments, making me laugh.

How to get bad speaks (in order):

1. Be mean to the other team.

2. Do something sketchy with evidence.

3. Abuse crossfire with long speeches instead of questions.

4. Speak quickly to the point of spreading.

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

I debated at Saint Mary's Hall 8 years ago. Since then, I've been coaching and judging PF, LD, and some policy.

I'm currently a coach for Magnolia and Del Norte, and Director of PF at Victory Briefs.

I'm formerly the Director of Speech and Debate at Westlake HS and Corona del Sol.

cale@victorybriefs.com

SpeechDrop works too

General:

Read whatever you want, at whatever speed you want, provided you are clear. Debate is hard work, so I'll work hard to flow closely and give you a good decision, but absent clarity I can't do that. This means you should be explicitly line-by-lining arguments, slowing for tags/analytics, signposting, and making your doc organized. When I'm not confident in a decision, I can usually trace it back to one of the above elements.

I won't 'gut-check' or hand wave away your opponents' argument because you think it's silly or under warranted. Engage in the argument- if it's as frivolous as you're suggesting, doing so should be easy. I will, however, readily intervene if an argument being read is unsafe or morally repugnant.

Finally, be kind to each other. I am a teacher and would appreciate if you treated each other the same way you would in a classroom- that means all students should feel safe and respected in the round. This includes arguments that insert screenshots or other personal information about your opponent: save for disclosure arguments, this is not the place.

Counterplans: I will judge kick the CP. I am good for competition and process based counterplans, and while I won't hack for it, limitless condo is a strong default (less so in LD given speech times). Meaningful engagement in a competition debate is strongly preferred to a blippy cp theory claim or a wall of uncontextualized, 3 word perms.

Theory: Always send interps at a minimum, and meaningfully slow down for anything you extemp. Please also lbl your opponent's theory hedge- these debates are least tolerable when paradigm issues are being cross-applied on three different pages with minimal interaction. Also keep in mind I am not actively cutting positions in LD or Policy, so caselists on T aren't going to mean much to me.

Ks: Good for it, just get really lost when you're super overview heavy in the 2n. Do lbl work, and assume I'm not steeped in your literature. In general, the more clear and material your impacts and alternative are, the easier it will be for me to vote here.

Tricks: If the argument has a warrant, implication, and is delineated in the doc/in cross, I am open to voting for it. This means, for example, something like "I am the greatest conceivable being" I am not good for, but a fw trigger is fine.

Phil: Comfortable with Kant, Hobbes, Baudrillard, and other 'normal' LD stuff, but inexperienced beyond that. If it isn't a Kant 1ac, I would probably err against being too tricky.

PF: Extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. Come to round ready to debate (be 'pre-flowed' and have set up the email chain if you're using one).

I debated all throughout middle school and high school. I attended Polytechnic High school in Pasadena, California. My main event was Parliamentary although I've also competed in World Schools. I taught Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary over the summer after my senior year of high school and first-year of college. I currently attend Harvard college and am an active member of the Harvard College Debating Union (HCDU).

As a debater, I appreciate rigorous argumentation and expect a lot of engagement with the other team's ideas.

I like off time road maps. I like overviews with voting mechanisms that are carried down the bench. I need weighing that directly engages with the other side's impacts. Don't try to win everything. Just show why the things you're winning matter more. Signpost so I know where to flow. I get annoyed by messy debates. If something was dropped by the other team, just tell me to extend it because it was dropped; I don't need you to retell me the argument/idea/piece of evidence/etc. Don't be mean to the other team because it will almost certainly hurt your speaker scores. Being assertive is not being mean; being condescending is mean.

Also, time yourself and your competitors because I will not.

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

Updated for April 2023.

Tabroom has the option to specify pronouns for a reason. If a debater specifies certain pronouns by which they identify in a live update, ensure you know them. I have ZERO tolerance for deliberate misgendering because it makes the round unsafe. If you object to this, strike me.

A note on content warnings: I have seen the proliferation of potentially triggering arguments being tagged with content warnings before rounds. This is great. If someone doesn't read such a warning, I would be extremely receptive to claims about why that should mean I drop the debater immediately. However, I notice the execution of such warnings leaves much to be desired in some cases. A CW should have three components:

A. A clear indication of the general topic which will be discussed and whether it is graphic or not.

B. A google form wherein the competitors and judges in the round can anonymously indicate discomfort. Do not ask for someone to say whether the content is triggering or not aloud, it is extremely traumatizing and difficult for survivors of trauma to have to out themselves for the sake of your debate argument. Asking for this is immoral and at best will be met by me tanking your speaks and at worst lead to me dropping you immediately.

C. If someone does indicate discomfort, simply say you understand and will read a different argument. Do not pressure or guilt trip anyone for being unwilling to discuss these arguments. Regardless of how important these issues are to debate discourse, safety is definitely more important.

Put me on the email chain: rubinmai@gmail.com.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible, feel free to email me before the round and I will do my best.

TL;DR: Tech>truth, first speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense unless it's frontlined by second speaking rebuttal, in which case you have to respond to frontlines if you wanna go for it in FF. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline defense, but does have to frontline turns or disads. Defense isn't terminal unless you tell me why. I've been scarcely involved in debate for a few years and am rusty, adapt accordingly. Don't be more tech than you are. See point 5 if you're reading an anticapitalist argument.

Hello. I did PF for three years at Boca Raton High School ('17) and currently coach/judge circuit PF. I went to FSU until spring 2021 and am currently a third year law student at ASU. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating.

I have been much less involved in debate since 2021, however. Take all of the components of this paradigm with the caveat that I might have issues keeping up with overwhelmingly tech rounds due to being rusty.

I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm or an RFD, feel free to ask before or after round (tournament permitting).

As for the paradigm:

1. Debate is a game (unless you compellingly argue otherwise in-round), call me tech>truth. I'll vote on any warranted argument insofar as it isn't unambiguously, maliciously offensive. In the latter case, you'll get an L0-20. I think intervention assassinates pedagogy and fairness because the round is decided by factors outside the control of debaters. To minimize intervention, I will presume the status quo in a scenario in a policy topic where: A. no one is accessing offense, or B. both teams are accessing offense without literally any analysis as to which args are more important and it is impossible for me to resolve the debate without intervening. In short, I presume in pretty much any scenario where it is impossible for me to resolve the round without having to introduce any of my own analysis that wasn’t in it. DO NOT ABUSE THAT. I presume first on non-policy resolutions. On that note, I believe defense is NOT terminal unless you tell me it is and why. I presume defense is mitigatory by default, and give very little weight to it if it is not implicated. This ensures people don't lose the round on presumption because of one piece of mitigation that was dropped and lacked implication.

2. First speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense, unless that defense is covered in second rebuttal, in which case, it must be frontlined in first summary and extended if you intend to go for it in FF. Likewise, if you're second speaking and frontline in second rebuttal and your opponents drop the frontline in first summary, you can extend the frontline straight to final focus without mentioning it in summary. I do not require second rebuttal frontlining for defense, but it is required for turns. However, it is probably strategic to do because defense is a lot harder to access if frontlined early. Beyond that, no new in the two. That includes new weighing in the 2FF, unless there was no prior weighing. Any argument must be responded to in the speech after it is introduced or else it is conceded, with the exception of first rebuttal defense that is not frontlined in second rebuttal. However, I do believe.

3. Regarding new applications of certain args, the way I handle them is that the part of the arg itself that was read before cannot be responded to if dropped. However, the new application can be responded to because it was never read before in the round and the other team had no way of knowing they needed to frontline. Too many teams keep pulling this super sus strat of reading entirely new applications of frontlines or defense to dropped args in the backhalf and reading entirely new implications that weren't in rebuttal. This is effectively a new argument because this articulation of the argument wasn't earlier in the round and the other team couldn't respond to it. There are two exceptions. Those are if 1FF is answering new arguments from second summary and/or if 2FF is refuting those answers. Second, if you're making a theoretical argument about some abuse committed late in the round. If it's the latter, you better spend a VERY significant chunk of your FF on the argument and warranting why the level of abuse is big enough to outweigh the fairness skew of an arg that is new in the two.

4. The only new frameworks that I feel comfortable with being introduced after summary, absent some argument telling me otherwise, are voters and reasons to prefer/weighing frameworks. Clarity of link weighing is fake news 99% of the time, I am not fooled by new attempts to read defense in FF.

5. Cool w/ progressive arguments if done properly and am tangentially familiar with stock K lit. I notice a lot of judges try to ascribe specific purposes to these types of args, like only being for checking back abuse. I think this is intervention. YOU decide and argue in round what the role of a progressive arg is and how that affects the round's outcome. Also, tell me why your args/standards are voters, especially for theory/T. Disclaimer: I have a college policy background, but a limited one, and I was also bad at it. If you're someone reading these types of args, I suggest dumbing them down by spending more time explaining/implicating them.

(NEW AS OF APRIL 2023) As an addition to the above, I have become more versed in anticapitalist literature since taking some distance from debate. With this, I have also grown disillusioned with how a lot of PFers read arguments based on that literature such as capitalism kritiks. Saying I should reject something solely because "it perpetuates capitalism" is oftentimes meaningless in the greater scheme of things within anticapitalist theory. That's not to say I won't vote on those args, because I will if they are accessed and weighed. But it is to say that I have an unavoidable internal bias against that variant of anticapitalist argumentation. However, I love capitalism arguments in PF when they're accompanied by rock solid uniqueness (i.e. reasons why capitalism is gonna collapse and the aff prevents/delays that, or reasons why the aff causes capitalism to collapse). I will do my best to restrain this bias, but it is there, and it is fair you be made aware of it.

6. Good w/ speed but notify me if you're gonna outright spread so I can flow on laptop. Send speech docs if spreading or I will not be happy. Slow on tags/authors/analytics. I will clear you.

7. Issues in CX need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them.

8. If a link turn links to a different impact than the argument it's turning, that impact MUST be weighed for me to evaluate it because these types of arguments don't inherently prevent or hijack impacts, meaning it doesn't function as defense either. Treat it like an impact from case.

9. If a card is disputed throughout the round or has something in it that spikes/responds to another arg, please extend the card name in summary and FF for clarity and signposting.

10. Please warrant new cards/arguments in summary, don't just read a claim that only ever gets warranted in FF.

11. Please weigh because it makes the round clearer and easier for me to judge. Line-by-line is important, but weighing is absolutely necessary. Most teams I've judged haven't weighed, or done so poorly. Weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Arg interaction is key. Clarity of impact/link weighing is fake news 90% of the time just because people throw those buzzwords at me and just say “we outweigh because our arg is true.” Just saying you outweigh because you access an arg is not weighing. Strength of link is fine with very good COMPARATIVE warranting rather than being a poorly veiled attempt to read new defense in FF.

12. Absent being told otherwise, I default to evaluating the round on several levels. In descending order: framework, comparative weighing, weighing, offense access. I'm open to some theoretical alternative to evaluating the round if it's proposed to me, I.e. procedural args like theory coming first.

13. If you plan on conceding an arg for strategic purposes, I like that because it’s smart. That said, such can be abusive if used at a point where it is nigh impossible for the other team to respond. I do not wanna intervene on this issue, so: it is fair to make strategic concessions, but only in the speech immediately after those args are made. For example, if someone reads terminal link defense alongside a ton of link turns in first rebuttal, your concession should be in second rebuttal. I won’t take this into account by default. This only comes into play if you argue why it’s abusive. If this happens and you do not make an arg about it, I evaluate it normally. I am VERY receptive to theory arguments on this issue, even in the final focus if and ONLY IF the abuse in question happened right before it.

14. As an extension of the above, I don't enter the round with any preconceptions about certain args being abusive. There are no abusive args unless you: A. tell me why the arg is abusive (most people are blippy on this), and B. why that means I shouldn't evaluate them, preferably grounded by some standard like education or fairness (often entirely absent). Or you could read theory, which is fine by me.

15. I tend to evaluate evidence as arguments, unless some arg in round is made that I should eval them otherwise or there is REALLY excessive abuse. That means a few things:

A. Just as I only evaluate arguments as you present them to me, I only eval ev as you present it to me. This means that the claim you present from the ev is how I eval it, and if I call the card and see some other application of the ev that wasn't articulated in round, I'm not gonna consider it.

B. I prefer not to call for cards unless I am told to. In fact, I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to do evidence comparison myself. Please do it for me, it likely won't end well for you if it comes down to this. There are exceptions to this rule for cards I deem important enough to call, and I will admit that metric is somewhat arbitrary. I think, however, that most would agree that such arbitrariness is fine if it leads to accountability. If I call your ev due to an indict, and the specific parts of the ev in question are problematic, my default response is to just drop the ev to minimize intervention. This, of course, can change if your opponents make some argument as to why this should impact the outcome of the round. I also might just call cards for clarification.

C. The only occasion in which I drop a team with the lowest speaks tab will allow for misrepresenting ev is if it is REALLY terrible and malicious, and the abuse is obviously super extreme, i.e. fabricating ev, distortion, or obvious clipping. I haven't had to do this in a round I myself have judged yet, so my threshold for this is very high, don't be alarmed.

16. The Jan 2019 topic has taught me that there are some parts of economics that I do not understand. Explain economics to me in round like I'm five, for both our sakes.

17. I evaluate embedded clash to an extremely limited extent in the absence of analysis/implication in the round itself, and I only do this when it has to be done to resolve the round. My standard for evalling embedded clash is that if the analysis/extension you read is 100% there and just not signposted in its application or is on the wrong part of the flow, I eval it. By 100% there, I mean I could literally cut and paste that verbatim statement on to the arg it clashes with and have zero issue. If I can't literally just add the phrase "On this argument..." to the analysis/extension that's there, I won't eval embedded clash in the absence of analysis. PLEASE do the analysis properly, I hate evalling embedded clash and your speaks will suffer.

18. In terms of theory, I default to competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater, open to otherwise if argued in round. Likewise, if you read a theory shell instead of a PF-y argument about why a certain thing is abusive and shouldn't be evaluated, I will hold it to the standard of a theory shell. Extend the interp verbatim. The shell line-by-line doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.

Speaker Points

To me, speaks aren't about presentation. I tend to give speaks based on one's strategic decisionmaking and argumentation in the context of a round. Cool strategic moves and good efficiency (especially in the backhalf) are the key to my heart. I’m not a fan of giving speaks based off stylistic performance, mostly because those tend to be informed by some pretty bad norms that disadvantage non-cishet white men. If your strategy is good, I don’t care how you speak, I will give you good speaks.

Here’s the breakdown:

30: You made the best possible strategic decisions and arguments in the context of the round.

29-29.5: You made smart strategic decisions and arguments. Only a few things you could have done better.

28-28.5: Solid argumentation and middle of the line strategic decisionmaking. What I give to the majority of decent rounds I judge.

27-27.5: Passable argumentation with several mistakes, and a noticeable absence of strategic decisionmaking. Round was way more unclear than it should be, and improvements are definitely needed.

26-26.5: Below average. Major mistakes or problems with the debate, definitely needs immediate improvement.

25-25.5: Very below average. Completely mishandled the round. Significant work needed on how the debate is handled.

<25: You probably said something quite offensive or tried to spread cards without sending a speech doc.

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that.

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try :)

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

Please, please signpost.

Don't delink your own case to escape turns, just frontline them.

You can enter the room and flip before I get there.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

30 speaks if you do interpretive dance during case

Hi! I did PF for 5 years and graduated in 2018.

***Harvard 2020 - bring me food and drink please ***

Things that make me weird

1) Preflow before round

2) I'll call for whatever evidence I'm told to in addition to what I want. If you misconstrue evidence I will intervene and drop the evidence AND maybe the entire argument if the entire link chain is misconstrued

3) ima give you a common sense amount of time to pull up cards before I start running your prep. have your cards available!

4) I'm an absolute FIEND for some warrant/link comparison instead of impact comparison. Also comparison of weighing mechanisms is the path to my heart

5) postround me idrc - just be considerate of both of our time and recognize that at a certain point we may just disagree about the debate

Other than that, please refer to Ryan Zhu's paradigm and imagine it was 3 years older. Tech > truth just do your thing

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round, through Facebook Messenger, or email me at richardzhu64@gmail.com.