LD Paradigm

Ill keep this short:

This is my 13th year involved in LD. I qualled to the TOC, and have coached for the last 8 years as a private coach, assistant at a big program, head of LD at a program, and now run FlexDebate.

I believe that debate is a game and you should play it however you want. Im fine with really any argument so long as it is obviously not racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I have usually found that it is better for debaters to read what they are most comfortable with in front of me.

Slow down on tags and standards texts plz.

EDIT: Tricks debate is super boring and non innovating these days, so I am usually less impressed by those debates and will sometimes point lower as a result.

If you have anymore questions feel free to email me at sam@flexdebate.com

PF Paradigm:

Got involved more seriously in PF these last few years-- currently coach Princeton along with a few other teams and am the Director of PF at NSD. I am a flow judge. Make sure to extend offense in the summary. The second rebuttal does not necessarily have to frontline, but obviously often times it is strategic to do so. I also do not think that the first summary necessarily has to make defense, but again, might be strategic in some instances to do so. Finally, please make sure to weigh in later speeches, otherwise it makes it tough for me. Overall, have fun and learn something while you are at it!

**tl;dr read the bold. I like starting on time/early if possible.

For background, I debated PF 4 years at Newton South and it's my 4th year coaching at Nueva. I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round. The later in the day it gets, the more tired I get, so if I'm grumpy it's not you, it's me.

---Most normal tech things apply: here are more unique thoughts

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense as your arguments get more extreme/factually incorrect. I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds). This isn’t Pokémon, I don’t want to hear why your card beats their card.

Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)

---Other stuff

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) and/or there's actual discrimination happening and/or it's drop the arg not the debater

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, drop it. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that: please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

Last thoughts: I generally don’t presume and instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. Let your parents watch your rounds! They've earned it. And remember to eat!

Email: kaylaxchang@berkeley.edu. Please feel free to reach out for any concern, round/not round related.

I did public forum for Dalton

Please let me know if I can do anything to make you feel more comfortable or safe in round. Feel free to email me at ilanadebateacct@gmail.com if you have things that you'd rather not say publicly. Please add me to the email chain here as well.

1. I am good with PF speed (<300 wpm), as long as your opponents are. Debate the way that makes you feel most confident in your analytical skills

2. I am open to voting off of any arguments as long as they are fully warranted, fully extended, and non-discriminatory

3. Please do actually comparative weighing

4. First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it's frontlined in second rebuttal. My personal preference is that second speaking teams frontline offense at the very least, but you do you
5. If you extend an indict or think that they're misrepresenting evidence and you extend this through FF I'll call for it, but otherwise I will not intervene about evidence
6. I am open to evaluating Ks, and will do so to the best of my ability. I prefer that you use theory to check back for in round abuse, and am very fine with paragraph theory
7. I presume first speaking team unless given warranted reasons otherwise

Let me know if you have any questions

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

Strake Jesuit '19 | UT Austin '23 | SMU Law '26

He/Him/His

Email Chain/Questions: caden.day@utexas.edu

Please start an email chain as early as you can before the round starts. Also, I can absolutely tell when you are stealing prep while "trying to get the email to send" or while "waiting for the email to send." Please don't do that.

TLDR

Tech>Truth. Read anything that isn't exclusionary. Warrant everything (cards, analytics, extensions, etc.). Extend all parts of your arguments (including turns).

Tech>Truth

You can genuinely read anything in front of me as long as it's explained well. I'm most familiar with/primarily read Theory, Plans/CPs, off-case Disads, soft-left Ks, and framework/philosophical arguments. I am less familiar with non-t arguments and tricks. But again, read them if that's your style! I can keep up.

Tricks without warrants will be treated similarly to any other argument without a warrant—they will be given very little credence. So, if you plan on reading tricks, don't just dump them on the flow. Take time to explain the warranting in them.

There is, of course, the obvious exception to my "read anything" policy, which is that I ask you to foster an inclusive and educational environment.

Speaking Style and Speaker Points

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

Go as fast as you want unless you are going to read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names. If, in later speeches, you aren't relying on a doc, dial back the speed a bit so I don't miss anything.

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

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. Tell me if you have disclosed your cases because I won't check for you.

Summary/Final Focus

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each). Extensions of taglines or claims alone are insufficient. Please please please extend warranting and analysis.

Similarly, if going for link turns, extend the impact that you're co-opting; if going for impact turns, extend the link that you're co-opting.

Miscellaneous Stuff

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

Defensive extensions should be in every speech - it is not sticky.

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

Any misrepresented evidence that is called to my attention by your opponents will be struck from the flow. In especially egregious cases, I reserve the right to severely dock your speaks or drop you outright.

If you have more specific questions, don't be afraid to ask them before rounds! Similarly, if you have questions about my decision after the round, ask away! It won't impact your speaks or my decision or anything like that. I want you to leave the round with a better understanding of my RFD if you feel confused.

copied & pasted this from Asher Spector's paradigm - I agree with everything below. please also content warn arguments if necessary (and have a backup argument ready just in case)! if you're not sure how to content warn something, ask!!

--

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 will do my best to 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 feel free to ask me!

(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.

- and don't forget to have fun!

Email is zkaufmann24@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make a round better for you!

Some general notes:

* Make strategic decisions!

* Please, for the love of all that is holy, put a warrant in everything you say. If your argument lacks a warrant, it's not an argument. I don't feel comfortable voting on things which I would be unable to explain to the opposing team as part of an RFD. Good logic > decontextualized quantitative evidence.

* Please, please weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more. Please explain explicitly how your arguments interact and do weighing that is good, nuanced, and makes sense within the context of the round. Quality > quantity.

* Rebuttal should answer turns on case and include weighing; generally I think that you should respond to offensive arguments in the next speech, case obviously excepted. You need to extend defense in every speech, conditional on your opponents' having answered it.

* If you want me to vote on something, it needs to be cleanly extended in both summary and final focus (i.e. link, warrant, impact, even for dropped arguments). Extend turns in first summary if you’re gonna hinge your whole round strat on it, basically. If I don’t know what I’m voting for, I’ll be sad and your speaks will suffer.

* Debating the way you want to debate and having fun is great, because otherwise there’s no reason for any of us to be here.

* I appreciate non-util framing and making arguments that you actually care about.

* If you feel comfortable, add your pronouns on tab.

Things I am Fine With:

* I am okay-ish with speed. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but if you want me to flow important analysis or author names you should slow down.

* I'm fine with theory which checks back for actual abuse and which is articulated more like a traditional PF argument (i.e. paragraph form, which I find much easier to evaluate. If you start spreading, I will have no idea what is going on). I don’t know a ton about theory/Ks/etc, so if you want to do this explain it clearly and a little slower than usual and you should be fine.

In the words of Harry Bagenstos: "I think it is probably possible to debate nontraditional PF arguments such that even an opponent who has no prior familiarity with the style can understand and make technically valid responses to them, and I think you should try to do that rather than presuming the existence of highly-developed theoretical principles imported from other events." In general, just debate how you want to debate, but make a good-faith effort to include your opponents.

Specific Things Which I Dislike:

* Bad evidence ethics. Good logic beats bad evidence. If you want me to call evidence, tell me.

* Card dumping with no warrants. Also, extensions with no warrants. Basically anything without warranting. If you don't warrant something, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

* Exclusion generally. Debate fails if it’s not accessible to everyone. If you’re spreading to make sure your opponents can't flow or reading arguments that exclude the other debaters in the round, I will not be happy. This also means that I am open to progressive arguments if they check back for this.

* Debaters not treating other debaters like real human beings. Joking around and being snarky is great, but anything blatantly offensive/ mean/ dismissive will get your speaks tanked and you possibly dropped. I debated as a female second speaker with a male partner and I encourage everyone—especially male debaters and those on all-male teams—to consider how "perceptual dominance" or humor can come across as demeaning.

* Co opting issues for a strategy. Care about the issue and make the debate productive for everyone. Consider content warnings and flexing contentions if someone objects--sensitive topics don't exist in a vacuum and can affect the people around you, so be conscious and you should be fine. IF YOU DO NOT READ A CONTENT WARNING ON A SENSITIVE ARGUMENT AND YOUR OPPONENTS OBJECT IN ANY WAY, I WILL DROP YOU. IF ARE RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, ABLEIST, ETC, I WILL DROP YOU. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPASSION FOR OTHER PEOPLE. If you don't know how to run a content warning, you can ask me before the round starts.

Things I Do Not Care About:

* What you’re wearing, how you're sitting, etc... Debate is stressful and you should be comfy.

I was formerly a 4 year PF debater at Stuyvesant High School, a 4 year PF coach for Hunter High School, a 4 year APDA/BP debater in college, and the Director of NSD PF for 3 years. 3 things to note:

1. I don’t need defense in first summary if 2nd rebuttal didn’t answer it and you extend it in final focus, but I do need defense in 2nd summary if you intend for that response to factor into my decision. All offense must be in both summary and final focus.

2. I give relatively low average speaker points, as I will award an average PF speech a 28.

3. Do not be afraid to grill me after the round if you think I have made a mistake in evaluating the round in any way. It will not sway me but it might teach you something and i really don’t mind at all.

TOC 23 update: Senior at michigan, competed and coached PF on the nat circuit but haven't done much since 2021. Also have a policy background so I'll try to keep up with the technical stuff, just know I'm rusty.

-standard flow judge: frontline, extend, and weigh

-any speed is fine but ask opponents if you plan to go fast

-1st summary only needs defense if 2nd rebuttal frontlines

-the later an argument is made, the less i'll believe it

-theory/kritikal arguments are fine if made in accessible ways

-dont be a bad person and have fun

Feel free to ask any more specific questions before the round, if you wanna read more I judge similar to this guy.

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

I agree with everything here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=61812

For Blake 2020: Absolutely zero prior knowledge. Please explain everything to me.

I debated throughout high school. Please see This guys for more specifics.

Also first speaking team gets presumption.

Also please don't paraphrase, I won't drop but yuck.

Bring me food I'll bump speaks.

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones.

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

Background: I did PF for four years in the Texas and National Circuits. Qualified for TFA State three times and Gold TOC three times, clearing at both. I formerly coached for Strake Jesuit in Houston and served as the tournament director for the Strake Jesuit PFRR from 2018-2022. I was heavily influenced by policy debate, so I generally agree with their debate norms.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. I evaluate tech>truth only. I am tabula rasa, meaning you can read any argument as wild as you want and I will vote on it as long as it is warranted and not offensive. I mainly did LARP/traditional debate but also have experience debating theory and Ks, so you can run whatever you want. However, I only vote on arguments I understand, so I am more impressed by PF and policy-esque arguments more so than LD. Content wise, I strongly prefer in-depth substance over random off-case debate. I believe that my role as a judge is to be an educator and a norm-setter. In a nutshell, I take from Andy Stubbs in that I vote for the team with the strongest link into the highest layer of offense in the round.

Disclosure/Chains: Disclosing to the NDCA PF wiki is the only way to get above 29 speaks. Tell me if you disclose. If you are sharing docs or spreading, use Speechdrop, flash drive, or email chain.

Evidence: Cut cards > paraphrased. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if it is contested. For citations, I just need author name and year. Misconstruction of evidence will result in lower speaks, based on how flagrant it is.

Speed: Clarity>Speed. If you are clear, go as fast as you want. Slow down on author names, tags, and analytical arguments in case/rebuttal. Then, since I would be familiarized with your evidence, you can speed up summary/FF. Not the biggest fan of spreading; if you do, send docs. If you do spread, it must be cut card and not paraphrased evidence.

Style: Line by line debate only. Extend by author name and sign-post. Implicate all offense in terms of how it affects the ballot. Sign-post.

Speaker Points: Speaks are based off of in-round strategy only. Everyone starts with a 28 and I'll go from there. 29.0+ for disclosing only.

Misc: Speech times are set. One team is aff and one team is neg. I only vote for one team. I only down one team. No double wins or double losses unless instructed by tab. Speeches are set i.e. first speaker gives case and summary. Fundamental rules are set.

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

CX: I'm okay with open CX meaning your partner can join in to clarify answers. You can also both agree to use the rest of cross as prep time.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal just has to answer turns on case, not defense. Don't read a blipstorm of paraphrased responses or card dump; I either won't be able to flow it or won't feel comfortable voting on it. Not impressed by irrelevant DAs that don't actually engage the aff. Depth>Breadth. I like analytics especially when they implicate cards. You can read overviews, new advantages, add-ons, uniqueness updates, link boosters etc., but they must be based off of case or directly answer your opponent.

Summary: First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but must extend turns. Second summary has to extend defense and answer turns. Turns conceded out of second rebuttal are considered dropped for the round. Most (preferably all) new implications must be made in summary. I am fine with advantage add-ons and link boosters in summary, but I would like it more if these are read in rebuttal if possible.

Final Focus: This is the speech you call out drops and implicate the stuff extended in summary. Second FF should not have too many new weighing/implications. Anything outrageously new in 2FF will not be evaluated. It's subjective, but you'll know if something is too new in 2FF. Just weigh and implicate here.

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 very comfortable and 5 unfamiliar) of how I feel about judging these arguments:

Framework: 1; I like it. Introduce in case.

Kritiks: 3; No high theory. I like topical Ks. K affs and Reps Ks are fine too. I care most about the strength of the alt when it comes to Ks.

Theory: 2; My defaults are CI>Reasonability and no RVIs. Still tell me what I should prefer. I don't like friv theory. I default T>K.

T: 3; I default drop the argument. I default T>K.

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

Plans/CPs: 1; Tell me why the CP is competitive. Solvency advocates help. I don't like multi-planked CPs.

PICs: 3; Same as CPs but you must also provide a net benefit.

PIKs: 5; Not a fan. No experience with this.

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

Misc: I'm not too familiar with arguments like permissibility, skep, presumption etc. so I will try my best to evaluate them, but my understanding and threshold for response are fairly low.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

I did PF for four years at Evanston Township HS, and I'm currently a senior at Columbia.

I'll flow, I can handle speed, and I'll listen to anything as long as it's not offensive/violent -- I won't vote for your argument if it's either of these things.

I'm most likely to vote for you if 1) your argument was extended in its entirety (warrant and impact) through summary and final focus, and 2) you weigh. The best weighing is comparative, so just repeating an impact from case, even if you're doing a great job explaining why that impact matters, isn't enough if it doesn't engage the other half of the debate.

Have fun & make jokes if you're funny :)