I participated in Public Forum Debate for 4 years and am very knowledgeable about the event. To a certain extent, I believe that PF Debate is a speaking event and prefer if you don't speak too fast/spread. However, if the round comes to it, I am able to flow fast speaking. I would like to see weighing in the speeches to make it easier for me to decide the winner of the round. Additionally, please don't just try to "extend" everything ESPECIALLY don't extend through ink. Explain the argument effectively and why it is important. In summary, try to crystalize arguments and focus on the ones that will help you win the round. There's no need to extend terminal defense if it is not responded to and it usually won't be a voting issue.

Overall: Speak clearly, make logical arguments, use weighing mechanisms, and make it easy for me to sign my ballot.

*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

I am a very traditional judge. I do not tolerate spreading and prefer arguments to be broken down and argued logically and realistically.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

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

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks 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. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

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

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

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I am a very traditional judge. I do not tolerate spreading and prefer arguments to be broken down and argued logically and realistically.

Speaks: I really, really don't like speed. I'm not even talking about spreading. If you go fast, i'll flow it and i'll evaluate the arg, but i won't want to, so if you dont want to take the risk on your speaks and/or the ballot, go slow.

Evidence: I will always call for evidence. Especially for args that are critical to the round. Don't misrepresent, or you're pretty much screwed. Also, I don’t flow card names in constructive/rebuttal, so if you want me to notice a specific piece of evidence, tell me what it says on top of its name.

Extensions: Offense needs to be extended in all speeches except for maybe the 1st rebuttal (if its offense in case). Some judges ask for 2nd rebuttal to be interactive with the first rebuttal, and while i agree its definitely helpful if you don't have to respond to everything in summary, it isn't necessary to secure my ballot. Impact extensions can be really short, since i would prefer to see more clash in the links.

Args: Don't run progressive arguments. Also, i'm tech over truth, but i will really not want to give you the ballot if you run bad args like extinction (unless you really convince me it will happen!). If one of yall is throwing on purpose, lmk beforehand so i dont have to flow.

General Speaking:

1) If you don't signpost, you're gna see me not flowing, so if you want what you say to be on my flow, please tell me where you’re at.

2) WEIGH WHAT YOU SAY IN ALL SPEECHES. The worst thing as a judge is to intervene because each side had an argument get extended. In that case, i will just vote with my gut feeling, and you probably won't like it. Also, weighing doesn't just mean throw out buzzwords like "we out weigh in scope" and then say something completely unrelated.

3) Give me a roadmap, and if you tell me you're starting with an overview, please tell me where to flow it.

4) I was hella abusive in crossfire when i debated, so i won't straight up down in you speaks for being a bit rude. However, if you're not letting your opponent talk at all, i'm probably not gna like you, and if i don't like you, you won't like your speaks.

5) I’m not a big fan of funny tag lines. It doesn’t matter too much but I personally think your tagline should get right to the crux of the argument so i know what im looking for.

6) In a bubble round, if you ask me how to get 30 speaks, ill tell you, and if you don't screw it up completely, you will probably get at least a 29.

Other Stuff:

1) I'm generally gonna disclose and give the exact rfd as to how i made the decision from the perspective of the flow. However, if you have any questions about speaking, feel free to ask me.

2) I probably won't be giving all my attention to crossfire, and i probably wont be flowing it either. If you wan't something to be evaluated that came from cross, bring it up in your speech.

Email: srimangaddam@gmail.com

PF/LD 4 yrs

LD Paradigm -

As a debater I did a bit of everything: framework, topicality/theory, policy, K’s, etc. I’m not deeply familiar with any particular body of literature, but I will likely have enough exposure to understand your argument and it’s implication for the round with clear explanations. So I’ll vote on pretty much anything that doesn’t make me doubt the activity’s value (e.g. racism good).

One caveat, for philosophically dense arguments, I value clarity very highly and don't enjoy digging through cards to make sense of your argument, especially when it comes to your advocacy (what am I voting for).

As a notice, I am no longer actively involved in debate, so be considerate. Speed should not be a problem - I am not afraid to call clear and slow - but I might not catch onto or be receptive to any new strategy antics that debaters love to pull.

I give speaker points based on a) general clarity and ethos, b) how well you understand and use your arguments (smart strategy)

PF Paradigm -

Overviews: Offensive overviews (overviews that are basically a new contention and aren't a direct turn to your opponent's case) are fine only in 1st rebuttal.

Theory: I don't care if theory is in shell form or paragraph form but make sure either way to not make a blippy argument without warrants.

Framework/Weighing: When presenting any alt framework, make sure to give a reason to prefer your framework over util.

Cross: Cross doesn't impact my decision, anything important needs to be brought up in a speech.

1st Speaking Team/2nd Speaking Team Differences: 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all offense from 1st rebuttal (turns+offensive overviews). 1st summary doesn't need to extend terminal defense unless 2nd rebuttal frontlines those responses.

I am a junior studying English literature and political science at the University of Houston. I would like to be added to the email chain at Russelgdebate@gmail.com. Each round I expect respectful and substantive discourse. Most importantly, good luck and have fun!

Here are a few things I look for in a debate:

- Warrant your arguments; I am looking for tech over truth (bar a completely unfounded and nonsensical case)

- Speak as much as you can, as often as you can

- Be passionate about what you are advocating (you do not necessarily have to agree with it; fake it till you make it)

- Be engaged in the round

Katy Taylor 2015-2019

UT '23

Congress:

- Argumentation > presentation.

- Clash is Really Important. I do like to see more rebuttal the further on we are in the round, but I'll take one really clear, direct argument against a previous speaker than 5 arguments with no substance in an attempt to address everyone in the room. Address your competitor's argument specifically! I'm here for well-constructed, direct refutation.

- Link to your impacts, please! Otherwise they don't make sense. Really strong links are impressive.

- Neg speeches need active harms somewhere, not just "this won't work-" otherwise there's no harm in trying.

- Use good evidence- really need to see more than a one-off line pulled from your source.

PFD:

- Good on speed but quality > quantity

- Line-by-line rebuttal is the best way to go for me. Also, make it obvious where you are in the flow- "under their second contention, subpoint A," "their Valeri card, which states ____" - all good! (Author name specifically is less crucial here, just explain what the card is saying so I know where you are.) Just tell me where to flow! I'd rather focus on the content of your argument rather than try to figure out where you are.

- If you're dropping an argument intentionally, make that clear. Also explain any extensions or turns.

- Final focus should be big picture.

Email me at clarisseman02@gmail.com for any questions!

Neither speed nor file justifies lack of clarity. Slow for tags and, especially, authors if you're going fast.

I can understand and vote for anything with warrants & clear explanation

Do not clash and refute from after constructives until the absolute end of the debate. I need voters and/or weighing to vote for you

LD/CX:

Varying degrees of knowledge on diff philosophy/high theory, up to you to risk finding out whether our knowledge intersects,

but anything w/ warrant/explanation

PF:
Line-by-line, weigh

Ask in round for more specifics

For all events clarity is extremely important to me, for example you would be better off with 4 sources stated clearly than 10 that don't come across clearly. With that, I prefer fewer well thought out arguments over tons of half baked ideas.

I don't love spreading, especially if you have to gasp for air the whole time, it takes away from what you are saying and distracts from the content of your speech.

I don't really want to limit too much as far as content goes because I feel that is unfair to the competitors, that said, I am mainly a PF judge so in other events I may not love something like a K for policy or running a theory heavy case or something like that.

At the end of the day, I believe debate is about learning how to both formulate arguments and effectively communicate them to your opponent and your judge. You have to have both informed content and clear speaking to be able to be successful.

Hi! My name is Chandler Scott and I am a 4 year high school debater who attends the University of Houston now. I competed on the local, regional, state, and national level in Congress, Extemp, LD, Original Oratory and Policy.

ABOVE ALL, I value politeness in round. I think that the debate space has become immensely competitive and, in that competitiveness, people have not been as polite. Please don't speak over one another and just be polite.

I believe that the Debate space has become muddled in a lot of jargon and surface-level argumentation. I need clear cut, well-defined argumentation and a clear line across the flow on arguments. If an argument is dropped, I will see and wonder why you dropped it (and maybe even vote off of it if it is crucial enough in my mind.)

Lincoln-Douglas: I am what you'd call "trad" in LD. I am against any unwelcome elements from Policy debate being introduced to LD. That means no CPs, Plan texts, PICs, Theory, Ks, etc. in round. I need a debate which follows argumentation and value-criterion, which is what LD is about. I need arguments clearly brought across the flow and a clear card by card analysis. If I hear you say that this type of case is your “lay” case, I see that as extremely disrespectful and you will at least suffer in speaks if that is the case. Overall, stick to traditional form in LD.

Public Forum: PF is what it sound like, public forum style debate. PF ought to be intelligible to anyone who watches it, so I need a clear explanation of all arguments in round. Please explain your case well and don’t muddle things. If you see an argument falling behind, you can drop it, but don’t just randomly bring it up during FF. Speak to me and not at me in Summary and FF. Overall, just be clear and stay true to form.

Policy Debate: As long as I can hear the words you are saying, spreading is fine. Slow down on tags and put a definite "and" when moving to a new card. Otherwise, I am fine with anything. Theory is okay. It is not my favorite argument, however. There is good and bad theory. If you have to think hard about whether to run it or not, listen to that intuition. If you read T, extend T. I have seen too many teams reading T and not upholding it throughout the round. To me, T is an accusation, and to drop something that is an accusation is reason to default aff. I am fine with counterplans. Please make sure that they are specific. A single card will not flow as a CP on my flow. I will vote on Ks. Please make them topical. I want to be on the Speechdrop (and you should use Speechdrop, email chains are annoying).

1. Please stop speaking so fast. I max out at 220 wpm. Past that, I'll only catch bits and pieces of it all, and that is not a good position for any of us.
2. *if you have me in any other debate event than PF or LD: I'm so sorry. I'm not gonna lie to you: this won't go well, and I apologize in advance.
3. Yes, put me on the email chain. krishna.shamanna2401@gmail.com
4. *For LDers: they've been sticking me in ya'll's rounds all year despite my objections, so I've reluctantly become somewhat mildly knowledgeable about how the event works, and can safely say that I won't be the absolute worst judge in this event, and should generally be able to follow along most substance. That said, please treat me like a flay judge, and ease up on the speed and the jargon, because if ya'll start spreading or feel the need to try some new-fangled progressive argumentation, I promise you that I will have no idea what's going on and will either default to the team I can comprehend or literally just flip a coin if I don't know what's going on for either of ya'll.
5. No longer relevant because COVID, but leaving it here for posterity: Bring me food and I'll give you a 30 (just you, not your partner, unless he/she/they brings me food too-- no freebies).

6. Some stuff abt me: I debated in PF for two years for Westwood High School, one of them on the national circuit where I achieved mild success. Now I'm a second year out. Here's what you rly need to know:

7. TLDR: Warrant, weigh, and don't be abusive. Tech>Truth, but don't be offensive and/or dumb. Yes, I disclose, and no, you don't have to.

   Long version:

   1. Yes, I intervene. 2 scenarios where it will happen: Either you're being incredibly offensive (sexist/racist/homophobic, etc.) in the round, or you lie about evidence. To clarify the first: I haven't seen many egregious examples of this type of conduct, but suffice to say: when you cross a line, I will drop you. I don't care if you won the flow-- if you actively contribute to making the debate space more exclusionary, I refuse to reward you for that with a W. To clarify the latter: It's one thing to marginally overstate the extent to which a card supports your contention. It's another thing entirely to cherrypick the part of a card that supports your argument, while ignoring the entire list of answers to your argument made in the next paragraph. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I will simply drop a piece of evidence if I find it to be misconstrued. But if your entire link chain is based on one card, and that card is a straight-up lie (at least the way you read it), I will drop the entire argument from my flow and refuse to evaluate it. I won't necessarily drop you for it, if you have some other source of offense that wins you the round, but you will be at a disadvantage from that point forth, and your speaker points will be dismal. This has happened exactly once so far in my time judging-- please do not be the second, whoever is reading this.
   2. I'm nice on speaker points now. Don't worry too much, just be respectful.

   3. I heavily dislike presumption/default votes, and expect you to not put me in that position. If you're confused about what this means, let me elaborate: A very disturbing situation is one in which I have to view two or more paths to the ballot that are both equally strong. Don't misunderstand-- this most often means you're doing something wrong. For example, if I have two ways to evaluate the round and I can literally flip a coin to figure out who gets the W because you frontline and extend completely separate arguments while doing 0 comparative weighing, I will consider factors such as quality of extensions, which scenario is more of an offensive argument to vote off of, etc. to make my decision. To clarify, this DOES NOT mean I will intervene to give the W to the team I like more in the round. It just means that the team does the better debating in a bad round should win the debate, rather than me reducing the ballot to the outcome of the coin flip-- ergo, no "presuming" anything.

   4. Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 250 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). But if you wanna ignore this, just let me be clear about something: I. Am. An. Extremely. Lazy. Person. I try to intervene as little as possible in debate rounds, and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you-- I shouldn't be doing that anyways. It's your job as a debater to convince me of stuff, so do it right.

   5. CPs/Ks/Theory and progressive whatnot--- Please, don't do it unless there's no other option. There are some situations where it's unavoidable: If your opponents paraphrase like 100000 cards and spread to place a boatload of responses, leaving you with not nearly enough time to make responses and call for evidence and whatnot, sure, run theory about spreading, paraphrasing, or whatever-- but it has to be egregious abuse. And even then, please dumb it down rather reading a shell. This event was designed to be a form of debate accessible to everyone, and I believe these types of arguments, while sometimes necessary, undermine that purpose. Not only do I doubt I can evaluate them correctly, but I'm frankly tired of seeing teams (you know who you are) from big schools with multiple coaches that are flown out every other weekend, go into round and spread theory shells against small-school teams (from predominantly local, lay circuits) about how small schools are supposedly harmed by non-disclosure or paraphrasing (this means I almost never evaluate disclosure theory).

   6. Paraphrasing- I don't understand why people are so uptight about this in PF. Reading direct quotes doesn't mean you can't misrepresent what the evidence says, so the logic behind the "no paraphrasing" requirements that many judges/coaches set doesn't really make sense to me. Again, this event is designed to be accessible to everyone-- in some cases, that necessitates paraphrasing evidence in order to articulate your arguments in the clearest way possible. But independent of that, I think it's important to realize that with the time limits being what they are in this event, sometimes paraphrasing is the only way that you can have enough time to make an argument at a deeper level and really provide a complete narrative for the judge to evaluate. So please, paraphrase if you want, and don't read theory against it unless there's actually an egregious case of misrepresentation that changed the coarse of the whole round.

   7. I shouldn’t have to say this but: Claims/Statistics need warrants before they can be evaluated as arguments, and this applies to all offense and defense in the round. If you extend an impact without extending the warrant (or vice-versa), I count it as dropped-- not weighable. Extending an argument, ESPECIALLY with the new extra minute of summary, should be done cleanly, with everything important mentioned in both summary and final focus. If neither team does this, I won't be happy.

   8. First summary is no longer allowed to skip extending terminal defense. If you're gonna extend it in final focus, I want it in summary as well. This year, the NSDA has literally given you an entire extra minute of summary AND prep time. There is no excuse anymore.

   9. If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but I'm cool with it), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns.

   10. Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, AT A MINIMUM. I think you should frontline defense as well, but I won't penalize you for not doing it. I like overviews, and don’t care if they’re in second rebuttal. Any overview read in first rebuttal MUST be answered in second rebuttal, otherwise it is conceded. You can allocate your time however you want-- I did 2-2 splits throughout my (very short) career, and it usually worked.

   11. Terminal defense extensions are good. Turns are better. You can drop your case at any point in the round and still have a shot, assuming you did it right.

   12. Anything in final focus must be in summary, except weighing (It doesn’t matter to me when you do it, as long as you do it because too many of you don't). Everyone needs to weigh. No one does. Please do. If not, you run the risk that the round becomes a messy stalemate (happens more often than you’d think), forcing me to intervene, and neither you nor I will appreciate the outcome of that.

   13. Weighing is more than saying buzzwords like probability, scope, magnitude, etc. You actually need to explain it. In fact, if you just get to the point and avoid saying those buzzwords (as in just say "Our impacts are more important because 1) we save 150 million people, while they only save 5 thousand, 2) We give you global benefits while they're restricted to China, 3) The chance of accessing X benefit is X% more likely to happen that nuclear war, which is almost possible today because of mutual deterrence"-- ALL WITHOUT SAYING THE WORDS "WE OUTWEIGH ON MAGNITUDE, SCOPE, AND PROBABILITY, BC ___") , I can guarantee you'll have extra time to warrant and even add some more weighing mechanisms, and maybe even some meta-weighing-- and then you'll be EXTREMELY likely to get my ballot, along with a FAT 30 :)).
   1. I realize that a lot of people won't be comfortable with this because it goes against everything ya'll were taught in debate camp and school and whatnot--- so I won't penalize you for it, meaning you COULD get a W30 without doing any of this-- it's just infinitely more likely that you'll fall back on buzzwords as a crutch and do 0 weighing, so be careful.

   14. I strongly prefer that teams collapse in summary/final focus on key issues. You can go line by line in summary if you want, but by the time you get to final focus, I think you should be collapsing on 1-2 voting issues in the round, and CRYSTALLIZING.

   15. Please have your evidence (preferably cut cards, but PDFs are ok if you paraphrase) available when your opponents call for it. As someone who debated with a very unreliable laptop and frequently used paywalled articles, I know sometime it takes some time to pull up evidence, so I'm slightly forgiving with this and will do my best to not be unfair. But try to not take it too far, because it's annoying, and if I'm on a panel, I can guarantee that I'll be one of the only ones who'll be nice about this.

   16. Misconstrued cards will be dropped from the round. If I catch you straight up lying/falsifying, you’ll be able to tell; my face (particularly my eyebrows) is very expressive when I’m angry. Suffice to say: you’ll get an L25, and you’ll know you did, well before I announce it, post it on tabroom, and loudly scold you.

   17. I don’t like jerks, but I love sass!. Please, by all means-- Be funny!!! (if you can haha) Tournaments are too depressing most of the time, for everyone, so ya'll might as well make this an entertaining experience for all of us.

   18. If you are being overtly offensive (as in racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.), you will get an L25, period.

I won’t evaluate progressive arguments. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. Lastly, make the round interesting and entertaining.

*******The debate is a competition, but it's also an opportunity to have fun and learn. Please have fun and be kind and courteous.*********

I did PF in high school and enjoyed it. There is nothing, in particular, I want to see in a round besides both sides respecting the other. I will vote based on the logic presented in the round, and if there ends up not being any presented in the round, I will default on my own-- this includes weighing. If you don't weigh for me, I will 100% vote based on what makes sense, meaning if you give me an "out there" argument, you better make me feel its worth voting on. Please don't spoon feed me BS and ultimately make the debate unproductive for everyone.

LMK before round if there is anything I can do to make the debate better for you.

Policy

email for case: abhi.sinha@utexas.edu

Spread: any speed is fine

Any theory shells or kritiks need to be explained thoroughly

Love a good framework that promotes clash

Highly value impact calculus in the 2NR and 2AR

Love a good cp with a upstanding disad

Don't even bother reading a kaff if you can't explain every word of it

Keep it topical, don't wanna have to connect the dots with some sketchy links

No ghost extensions

Will give good speaks unless you say something stupid or insensitive

PF

Keep arguments topical

Love a good framework

Clear argumentation and clash

sketchy links are a no go, I'd rather you read a stock argument than try to make it work

No ghost extensions

Line by line > Big Picture

Weigh both sides in the final summary and convince the hell out of me why your argument stands

Will give good speaks unless you say something stupid or insensitive

I debated PF for 3 years at Westlake High School.

Constructives:

I'll flow any argument, but keep in mind that I am a PFer and have comparatively less knowledge regarding plans, CPs, Ks, etc so if you are running one, make sure it is well explained. Moreover, feel free to run theory but check your privilege (see speaks section).

Rebuttal:

Second rebuttal has to frontline turns (sorry if this isn't the case where you're from, Texas has ingrained it in me). However, second rebuttal does not have to extend case offense. Weighing as early as possible gives you an edge on my ballot, so I would recommend doing it in this speech.

Summary:

Anything not in summary is gone at this point. The exception is defense from rebuttal (sticky only for first summary). That can be brought up in final focus if your opponents try to extend through ink in second summary.

Final Focus

Kind of goes without saying, but anything in ff had to have been in summary. Exception is evidence abuse (you call for a card before ff and think it's misconstrued).

Things that will dock your speaks:

-reading policy-style arguments against an obviously much less experienced team

-speaking super fast against an obviously much less experienced team (otherwise I don't care, go as fast as you want)

-reading disclosure theory against an obviously small/not nat-circuit school

-being rude in cross (especially if a guy is talking down/being a rude to a girl)

-reading straight off your computer

-reading in a monotone voice

-taking too long to pull up evidence when you're asked for it

-card dumping in rebuttal without any analysis (you're welcome, Jason)

Things that will increase your speaks

-including the warrant and impact in each extension

-signposting

-weighinggggg

-having cohesive narratives across speeches

-tasteful topic-related jokes/puns

-my subjective belief that you should be in outrounds

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner arguments that are dropped on the flow unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

IE

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

I was in speech & debate throughout high school; participated in PF & LD my first two years of high school & Congress my last 2 years, so spreading is fine as long as I could understand you. (Additional events I participated in OO, DA, Duo, & Poetry.) I have judged other tournaments before in so many events. I will be flowing roadmap & arguments. I will evaluate based upon your framework. It has been 2+ years since I have debated, so I may forget some little things about the event, but overall I know almost everything about PF once I see a debate again.

Background: I did PF at Kempner for 4 years and have received a TOC bid/broke at TFA state multiple times.

TL;DR: The easiest way to win my ballot is through clarity. I’m a simple judge. Give me clear warrants and impacts and explain why those impacts matter more than your opponents and you’ll win! Run whatever you want to but please make sure you can coherently justify your argument and if I ask myself - “why does this matter?” - there’s a very clear answer. Overall, I want you to be relaxed and have a great time so DON'T STRESS IT and do your best!

Specifics

1. EXTEND IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS THROUGH EACH SPEECH! That includes final focus and summary. Don’t bring up something in the final focus that wasn’t mentioned in summary.

2. Imagine a situation where you think get screwed by a bad judge in a round you think you should’ve won. When you leave the round and your friend asks you, “What happened?” and you give him that detailed breakdown of the round and why you should’ve won just remember: Everything you tell him in that moment is what you should tell me in the final focus. I’ve seen way too many rounds where teams just lack focus in their final focus ;).

3. Please be polite and professional in CX. Trust me, I can tell when an argument doesn’t logically follow through. You don’t need to waste time being excessively rude and dominant just to get your point across to me. At the same time, I won’t mind if you cut your opponents off every now and then if they’re being clearly excessive in their answers. You have to make the judgement call but just know if you continuously make the wrong call it will definitely reflect in your speaks. Just think “professional and polite” and you’ll be good!