I debated Public Forum for Los Altos for 4 years and Parli for one tournament.

For Septober 2020: I'm judging one round for this topic and know literally nothing about it, so please don't assume I have any background knowledge.

I'd say I'm a flow judge but I'm pretty bad at flowing so let's go with flay. I like to keep expectations low. Please don't spread my hearing sucks.

I really appreciate link debates and I won't vote off something unless I somewhat understand it. I always value solid warranting over card dumping.

I have a pretty high threshold for evaluating really squirrelly arguments/responses/turns and offensive second rebuttal overviews or other kinds of sus stuff.

I'm not super familiar with Theory/K's but if you explain it to me thoroughly I am willing to evaluate it. If you read it WITHOUT your opponent's consent/knowledge and are reading for an "easy win", you are making debate inaccessible and I will drop you.

*DO NOT straight up lie. I will tank your speaks and drop the argument. Please, PLEASE ask for evidence if you are suspicious of your opponent lying about evidence, and tell me to look at it.

I used to have a paradigm with a bunch of rules about extensions and frontlining but then I realized that they were just the rules of pf so I'm assuming you know those lmao.

If you have any specific questions, just ask! I don't appreciate salty post rounding but am happy to answer genuine questions. email me at ashley.lcai@gmail.com if you want more feedback!

GLHF everybody! :)

UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

The need to speak, even if one has nothing to say, becomes more pressing when one has nothing to say, just as the will to live becomes more urgent when life has lost its meaning.

My actual paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCHII3qVhIbGtqdos6dUGkuGa0WZZzw-L305yb8_43U/edit?usp=sharing

Pia Dovichi

Tech over truth

Defense is sticky, extend your whole argument (as in link, warrant, impact, not your whole case please) weigh

Ask me if you have any questions

for 2020 glenbrooks: I know nothing about the topic but default tech over truth so if it's on my flow I'll buy it, I haven't judged a round since TOC so if you're speaking fast please start your speech slower before speeding up

she/her/hers

I debated PF for Los Altos for 4 years.

Ask if you have additional questions or you want my email to ask.

Stolen from Ashley Cai's <3 paradigm:

I really appreciate link debates and I won't vote off something unless I somewhat understand it. I always value solid warranting over card dumping.

I have a pretty high threshold for evaluating really squirrelly arguments/responses/turns and offensive second rebuttal overviews or other kinds of sus stuff.

I'm not super familiar with Theory/K's but if you explain it to me thoroughly I am willing to evaluate it. If you read it WITHOUT your opponent's consent/knowledge and are reading for an "easy win", you are making debate inaccessible and I will drop you.

*DO NOT straight up lie. I will tank your speaks and drop the argument. Please, PLEASE ask for evidence if you are suspicious of your opponent lying about evidence, and tell me to look at it.

However you want to debate in front of me is fine.

I won't require defense in first summary, unless second rebuttal frontlines.

Don't forget to have fun!

PF Paradigm

I'm a tech judge. Speed should be fine as long as you slowdown on taglines. If you are going to spread, I want an email chain in round as I am out of practice. I will call clear a couple times if you are really unclear, and after that point I’ll just stop flowing.

I did policy a little and did pf for two years so feel free to run kritiks, theory, and other progressive arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained (I will not vote on disclosure in pf, so please don't run it, I also won't vote on friv theory either).

I am sort of a stickler for extensions so please extend all offense you want to be considered in summary and final focus. Also, please extend the impacts to turns, i won't do it for you.

Second rebuttal has to cover all of the other team's offense, whether it be turns, case, or overviews.

Extend terminal defense in summary, no need to talk about it after that unless it becomes a main voter.

I also stop flowing once the time stops, any new arguments made after the speech time won't be evaluated.

If i find that the round is essentially a wash, or if there is no weighing done, I will most often default to the easiest form of offense to vote off of, but sometimes I might not. The point is that you probably won't like my decision if you leave it up to me to decide what's the most important point in the round, so please weigh/extend.

Also, if evidence is heavily contested, or if it just seems really suss in round, I'll probably call evidence at the end, so please cut cards truthfully and portray them correctly. If I find that a card was clearly fabricated or miscut, it will result in 20s and it will be struck from the round.

Finally, offensive arguments (racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic) and behavior will most likely result in 20s at the very least so please be respectful to every one in and outside of the round.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is an amazing activity that can teach so many important lessons.

P.S I would really appreciate it if you preflowed before round.

LD Paradigm

Most of the same stuff for pf applies here.

Kritks: I am familiar with the basics, but in round I need more explanation of the links, role of the ballot, and the literature base (if it’s outside cap, sett col, or anti blackness). Be wary of running it in front of me if you can’t explain it well. I’ll do my best to understand the arguments you’re making but I don’t have a deep enough content knowledge to understand everything if the application of the K doesn’t make immediate sense.

Theory: I’m decent with theory, please just read shells, no paragraph theory.

Phil: My phil knowledge is not as deep as other ld judges, so please explain your value/criterion if you have them, and why they are important. Also, make sure you link your contentions back to your framing.

In general, debate the way you want to, I don’t really care what you do as long as you have good warranting and explain things well. I will evaluate everything the way that the round dictates it.

My email is: bradley.tidwell@yale.edu

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership