daniel (he/him)

if you have any specific questions ask me before round.

==========================================================================================

<< ONLINE DEBATE >>

1. evidence: if an email chain is made make sure to add me on it

2. general: mute yourself when not talking, keep track of your prep when reading cards (be honest !!)

==========================================================================================

<< PF >>

general stuff:

- tech > truth but the more squirrely an argument becomes the more work you'll have to do to convince me that it's a valid argument

- signpost throughout your speeches

- speed is fine but just make sure i can understand you, if you speak too fast, i'll stop flowing and just stare at you. please don't do that. it'll be awkward for the both of us.

- i think CX is binding but i won't flow it, if something important happens tell me in the later speech

- i presume neg by default but this should never happen, am open to other presumption args (e.g. 2nd, aff)

- if i am told to call for a card and i find that it contradicts what the person running it says i'll toss it out and pretend it was never mentioned

- i average 28 speaks

- please preflow before round, i won't let you do it in the room if the round should've started already because delays suck

- i like off-time roadmaps but it make it quick

good stuff

- frontlining in 2nd rebuttal

- comparative weighing -- simply throwing out buzzwords doesn't count, interact with your opponent's offense!

- warranting your evidence

"bad" stuff (avoid!)

- progressive args (theory, kritiks, etc.): not a "bad" thing perse but i don't have much experience with these at all so i can't promise i'll make a good decision over them (if theory is run make sure it's in response to actual abuse)

- don't call me judge, i think it's weird; speeches are directed towards me anyways

- don't read a framework that's just util (cost-benefit)

- card dumping

- just reading an author tag when extending evidence is not enough -- explain what the evidence says

- being rude during CX is very lame

About Me:

I am a junior at Thomas Wootton High School currently involved in PF debate. I have been debating for about 3 years on and off so I do know most debate jargon. As a judge, I really love to hear unique args because hearing the same stock args over and over again gets very old, very fast. With that being said, rest assured that I will try to still take down all the points of your arg even if I have already heard it just in case there is some new nuance. I believe that in debate you must have respect so I hope to see you all be respectful towards your partners and your opponents as well as to me.

Lastly, remember to HAVE FUN. At the end of the day, the reason we participate in extracurriculars is for our enjoyment so remember to keep your head up and go for it.

ABOUT SPREADING:

I can flow pretty fast, but please don't spread so fast that I just can't understand you at all (ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR ONLINE DEBATES). If you are speaking fast but you are still clear that's acceptable.

Additional Speaks:

- None atm

General Judging:

I will follow the flow and if you don't extend something in summary then I will weigh it lower than something that has been extended and pointed out to me. I'm not going to do much work for you.

I try to be tech over truth but don't test that by saying something blatantly false. Use your common sense.

If your time runs out and you are still speaking, I will allow you 3 extra seconds to finish your sentence and nothing more. Do NOT start a new sentence when you are overtime (seems obvious but it has happened before).

Miscellaneous:

1. Try not to be super rude during cross. It is ok to push your opponent and assert yourself but don't do it so much to the point that you are basically just not letting them respond. Everyone is trying to win, but ultimately we want to be having fun too.

2. You can time yourselves, but I will also keep a timer on. If you would like me to signal you for half time or one minute left just ask.

Speaks Key:

30 - You are literally a god at speaking

> 27 - Above Average Speaks

27 - Average Speaks

< 27 - Below Average Speaks

For debates on 100 speaks just scale up.

hi!

i'm christina (she/her) and debated for wootton pf. ask me for clarification before the round starts. 

VBIPHL: Do not read progressive arguments against teams that clearly cannot engage with them in order to win. My ballot/your speaks will be reflective of your poor decision and you will be upset with the result that I input. 

misc:

1. i'll evaluate any argument you can think of, however, in the case where the safety of a debater is compromised in the room (be it any -ist argument or a lack of TW on a sensitive topic) i will intervene. tab has the option to specify pronouns for a reason, misgendering is not ok.

2. speed is ok but sacrificing clarity is not ok. 

3. probably won't call for ev, imo a bit interventionist unless someone explicitly asks me to and the round is unresolvable.

4. i have a very bad poker face so if i dont/do like something you'll know.

5. i am most receptive to substance and i will do my best to judge as technically as i can.

round:

1. second rebuttal must frontline turns - conceded turns/contentions in rebuttal have 100% strength of link.

2. DAs/ADVs/offensive OVs are fine in second rebuttal to an extent but i have a higher threshold for contextualization/warranting/weighing/etc.

3. DLs must be conceded in the following speech (either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary) but also must be explained.

4. defense is not sticky 4 first summary. 

5. i appreciate good extensions. i do not care about card names. extend warrants with case. 

weighing:

1. weighing ideally should start in rebuttal. i'm not evaluating new weighing in final focus, including first final.

2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist. 

3. metaweigh/comparative weighing -- if there is none i'll probably prioritize pre-reqs/link-ins/co-ops -- if there is none of that i will just count how many weighing mechanisms there are. 

prog: 

i will do my best to judge to your standards. i dislike progressive debate so please only read it if there is justifiable abuse in the round (paraphrasing/disclosure dont count). 

1. general defaults (no RVIs, CI > reasonability, drop arg over debater, only if teams don't tell me what to do).

2. do not read theory against teams who clearly cannot engage with it (novices) i can tell and my ballot/your speaks will reflect that >:(.

4. little to no exp w K's, therefore K lit needs to be accessible -- you should also be extending K's/shells more rigorously than case bc it may be harder for me/others to grasp initially (especially if they are not topical).

5. no tricks.

i'm most receptive to substance but i'll do my best to evaluate whatever you read.

debate in a way that makes you happy and comfortable, post-rounding is fine, good luck!

If you can make a good topical joke during CX, I might bump your speaker points slightly :)

Speed: I'm ok with fast or slow speed, as long as what you're saying is enunciated and emphasized properly. Measure your speed based on your own comfortability, but make sure you are clear and understandable.

Clash: I like seeing a lot of clash. Be sure to emphasize how your arguments interact with your opponents, it makes it a lot easier for me to judge the round. I prefer offtime roadmaps and going down the flow.

During speeches, make sure to signpost and warrant extensively! Lastly, please be sure to weigh and collapse as clearly as you can! The burden rests on your shoulders to assure to me why you should win the round, so be very clear about it!

Remember debate is a fun activity, so don't get too discouraged by some of your results, make sure you're rnjoying the experience!

I will not intervene against any argument that has a warrant and has an implication on how I should be writing my ballot. I feel most comfortable evaluating topical rounds. I will evaluate any arguments about why things other people do are unfair or are bad for debate. I typically look to the argument that is best weighed assuming a reasonable probability of it happening with rare exceptions that you should delineate in the round. Answer all offensive arguments in the rebuttal speeches and answer rebuilding arguments/ frontlines when extending defensive arguments. The earlier the better.

This paradigm will be displayed publicly on the main Tabroom site, and will also be linked off pref/strike sheets for tournaments.

Please bear in mind that paradigms are public, geared to an educational audience, and have your name attached. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language is forbidden, and its use will result in your paradigm being removed. We might also lock or delete your Tabroom account.

In other words, be mature, and good people.

1. I can usually flow any speed. If I can't I will call clear.

2. Extend your arguments in summary and final focus. If you don't extend your arguments I probably won't consider it in my decision.

3. Please don't bring up any new points in second summary and final focus.

4. I won't flow crossfire so if you feel like something important happened in it, bring it up in your following speech.

5. I am really bad at weighing so please weigh for me during final focus. If no weighing occurs I will usually go with magnitude unless probability, scope, recency is brought up.

6. It is best if you give a roadmap at the start of rebuttal and signpost what you are going to say.

7. Will only call for evidence when you tell me to.

About Me:

- HS senior, started debate December 2017

- I flow (probably on excel) and I'd consider myself tech>truth 95% of the time

- I won't intervene but will pull cards if asked to or if it's important for decision

- I like funny things in rounds and I don't like rounds with lots of tension ;-;

- Email speech docs to awesomehenrysun@gmail.com (best email address ever :D)

Major Paradigmatic Issues:

- Feel free to read theory/Ks if it's justified; always make it clear + accessible for everyone

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal (at least turns and hopefully the contention you're going for)

- 1st speaking team does not have to extend defense if 2nd rebuttal does not frontline, otherwise, extend defense/weigh in both summaries

- Obviously, anything I vote on has to be in both back half speeches and hopefully rebuttal. Collapsing earlier is usually good because it means a more well-developed debate

- You must explicitly concede defense in the speech following if you don't want the other team to extend turns, I will buy the offense even if theory is not read

- I tend to be more lenient towards what I perceive to be more probable arguments, but I will do my best to be unbiased. However, if your argument doesn't fit this criteria and you don't read weighing that's probably gonna hurt

Stylistic Preferences:

Pet Peeves:

- People who put the apostrophe after the year (ex. 19')

- "Uniqueness controls the direction of the link"

- "Judge" you can call me henry, hen or herny works too

- Debate math on your evidence

- Reading CBA in case, reexplaining your case in rebuttal, or not weighing

- Screaming in crossfire or being mean to someone else

Preferably:

- Speak however fast you can if everyone is okay with it (speed with great analysis + clarity is in my opinion the best version of debate)

- Ask if I have topic-specific preferences

- Clash instead of reading off case disadvantages, especially in 2nd rebuttal

- Write my ballot for me in the back half - you can/should call them out for being idiots but refrain from personal attacks

- (Outdated as the Shao has been freed) Sign this petition for a +1 speaks: https://www.change.org/p/elisa-chen-allow-danny-shao-to-judge-at-local-es-ms-tournaments

Flow judge who will adapt to the debaters. Debate in a way that you enjoy & makes everyone comfortable!

howdy! i'm lawrence (any pronouns) and i did pf at montgomery blair. i now study environmental studies at yale where i do a bit of coaching. if anything here doesn't make sense/if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, contact me at lawrence.tang@yale.edu!

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

im a bit detached from the debate community. i will still draw cool extension arrows but you shouldn't assume i know anything about the topic or ur uber-cool groundbreaking meta-strategy.

general thingies

i will evaluate any argument as long as it isn't violent, exclusionary or compromises anyone's safety (be it bigoted arguments or lack of warning)*. include content warnings and an anonymous opt-in process. all participants in a round (including judges) need to opt-in. here's an example of an opt-in form!

i can handle most pf speeds but i'm also a bit rusty. don't use speed as an exclusionary tool.

no big emphasis on evidence -- how you spin your evidence matters more. i encourage cards though. i'll avoid calling evidence unless it's impossible to resolve the round otherwise.

i have a pretty bad poker face.

i view debate as a game of probabilities with every round having some uncertainty left up to the judge (weighing impacts, evaluating defense, etc). you should minimize that uncertainty and maximize the probability that i vote for you. assume that i'll make some mistake -- i'm not a robot!

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

• signpost and respond to arguments in the order they're made

• err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, many args I've seen have been super blippy/unwarranted and have left me pretty confused

general rule: the later an argument is made, the less weight i'll give to it. defense is sticky for first summary. don't read defense on your own offensive. concede defense immediately after the speech it was read in.

tempted to say probability weighing doesn't exist. if both teams give me weighing that's cool but i don't know how to resolve that so please interact with the weighing already read.

everything you want me to vote off has to be in final focus even if it's conceded. you don't have to do as much work but please at least breathe on them.

if i can't resolve the round without intervening, i'll presume whoever lost the flip.

progressive stuff: above-average understanding, but don't be exclusive

my defaults are:

• disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, but theory on these is iffier

• fairness is not a voter, rvis bad, CI > reasonability, drop the argument over debater

Phil/FW - some background knowledge but not much. make sure you're not just regurgitating weird academic language and actually explain ideas in normal english.

T - tbh i don't think i've run across a pf situation that needed a t shell. you're fine just saying something is non-topical. i also disagree with the nebel t.

Theory - most shells in pf are fluff. absent legitimate abuse in round, i'll vote on theory but i won't like it. disclosure and paraphrasing are more valid but still iffy.

Kritiks - i wrote a cap k once. familiar with some lit (biopower, orientalism, setcol) but not from debate pov. your strategy can't rely on background knowledge or me reading your evidence. iffy on arguments that weaponize identity or structural violence for the sole sake of a ballot. if you're reading these arguments, be genuine.

other things

• ask as many questions as you want. postround me. i'm always learning and would love feedback!

• always looking for more music, book (literally any type of media) recommendations, so if you have any hidden bangers please lmk!

*given my positionality, i recognize that i'm not neutral and cannot operate under a veil of objectivity. i don't trust my judgment in determining what is violent. however, i fail to see a better alternative :(

Please speak clearly so I can understand you. I won't flow if I can't

Please signpost

All arguments need to be warranted and cannot be just be asserted

If your opponent has a framework, make sure to address it in some way

Make sure to extend and explain link chain in second half of round

If something in cross fire is important, talk about it in a speech

No new arguments in second summary or final focus

Weighing is important and helps you. If you don't weigh, I will

Make it very clear why you win in the end

Be nice to each other and me, and have a good time