If you read an interesting case/off - or have unique and good weighing you will get good speaks

General:

Email:Add taha.amir575@gmail.com

Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues). I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round. Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.

General Thoughts on Debate:I think debate is a game and any argument and strategy is on the table as long as it is warranted. I will always be tech > truth. Although I prefer certain norms, nothing is absolute in the debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - just warrant it.

Speed:Speak as fast as you want, but always send a doc with all your evidence prior to your speech. Slow down on analytics. I was a pretty fast debater so if I can usually follow along.

Substance:You need to extend your arguments in the summary and final focus, but my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, so good, intricate weighing is the best way to win my ballot. I loved reading extinction impacts, and my favorite debates was doing smart link weighing in extinction v. extinction debates. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:

• Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.

• Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.

• Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.

• I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.

Theory:Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K/K Aff:My thoughts on the K/K Aff. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot. K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’

Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.

Send cases and rebuttal docs w cut cards

anbeastdawson@gmail.com

Preflow n flip n everything before round

If you are flight 2 make sure everything is ready before flt 1 ends, i dont like wasting time

If the round ends within 40 mins after the scheduled start time then I will give block 30s

Do something fun

I've read Theory, Ks, and Tricks but read whatever you can explain clearly. Even if I know what argument you are trying to make I won't do any work for you. That being said even if you pull smth I'm not familiar with like a unique K or phil I'll vote off of it if u explain it well.

Speed is fine but hella annoying. If I miss something that's on you. If I were you, I wouldn't because I am bored and generally uninterested

If the round is too unclear for me, i'm not even gonna want to listen to the backhalf when you try to slow it down, im just gonna flip a coin or vote on vibes

I'm a polisci major at Temple University. I debated on the circuit in public forum for JR Masterman for 4 years and I’ve dabbled in speech and parli.

This paradigm is just a guideline, not a ruleset. If you’re new to debate or just don’t know something on here, don’t worry, I think of myself as pretty nice and I try to evaluate every round with the context of the competition in mind.

----Big warning: If I'm judging you in person I (may) have a resting bored face when I judge! This doesn't mean I don't like the argument, sorry about that----

The most important thing to me is that everyone feels comfortable in round.

I will drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism etc..

Please read trigger warnings.

I don’t care what you wear.

Time yourself please.

Speed:

I can handle some spreading, but please slow down if your opponents cannot. If you’re spreading please send speech docs to me and your opponents. “Pf fast” is totally acceptable and comfortable.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are rather arbitrary and so I tend to be generous, if you genuinely make an effort in round and are not offensive don’t worry about them.

Round Strategy:

I like when teams frontline 2nd Rebuttal. I value a good collapse and good narrative later in the round. Weigh early and often. Defense in both Summarys, weigh at the latest in summary.

Cross:

Be nice, (optionally) be funny. If anything important happens bring it up later in a speech. If both teams agree to flex prep you may.

Progressive Argumentation:

My circuit was fairly traditional, however I have exposure to theory and K debate in PF, and will vote on it. CI > Reasonability. I'll probably buy RVIs but they should be either hella warranted or specific to the shell. The more frivolous the theory the less likely I’m gonna buy it. I still don’t really know what trix are but if you think you can persuade me to vote on it feel free.

Evidence/Evaluation:

If you can’t produce a card in a timely manner I’ll assume it doesn’t exist. I’ll call for cards after round, but only if debaters in round instruct me to or if it’s necessary for me to vote. Tech > Truth, but honestly the less based in reality your arguments get the more likely I am to buy answers to them. WARRANT WARRANT WARRANT please.

Signpost and Roadmap please.

I presume neg

If you have any questions, concerns or if you wanna add me to a doc chain my email is lucasabowerman@gmail.com

Competed in PF at LC Anderson in Austin, Texas on the nat circuit for 4 years

For LD

Im not the fastest at flowing so if there is any argument you want me to evaluate, analytic or carded, please send it in a speech doc either to dylcanyon@gmail.com or whatever method is easiest/fastest.

Debate is a game, you can run whatever you’d like as long as you warrant why I should vote on it, I will do my absolute best to avoid intervening at all times but if you make any argument that is exclusionary or makes the debate space unsafe for the competitors, I will intervene in the round as needed.

that being said the arguments I am most familiar with are the following, descending in familiarity: LARP, T and most other theory shells, kritiks, plans, CPs, performance advocacies.

ill evaluate tricks, presumption arguments and similar phil spikes like any other argument but it might be reflected poorly in your speaks.

tldr (PF)

debate is a game so tech>truth

run what you want; warranted arguments are true arguments until I'm told otherwise

I hate intervention and will avoid it at all costs so please I beg of you weigh (that means comparatively and not just using buzzwords like “magnitude” “scope” and moving on) weighing is essential to creating a lens for me to view the round under and achieving quality speaks.

speaks are usually 28-30 and based on argumentation>strategy>speaking

speed is cool, im not the fastest flower so send a speech doc if ur actually going fast and if ur gonna spread then id prefer you read from cut cards

theory is always fun but do it well, DAs are dope, plans and CPs aren't usually my thing but they’re fine , Ks are fine.

General Philosophy (PF)

Debate is a competitive activity and so long as you follow clear rules (speech times, and obvious stuff), are not reading anything exclusionary or blatantly discriminatory, and are not a huge jerk then you can read whatever arguments you like.

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS

Email chain and speech doc disclosure has really proven itself essential to me, if y’all don’t want to do so you don’t have to but it’s strongly advised and will be reflected in your speaks. However, this doesn’t mean I will use the speech doc or evidence sent to me to intervene, any problems y’all have with evidence should be aired out in speech and if there’s enough contest then I will check out the card and adjudicate myself. Otherwise, the doc is just for my clarity of y’alls arguments but should used by both teams to whatever advantage they can.

Framing

Framing is cool with me, but this should have a purpose, if I just hear "lives" or "cost benefit analysis" you will look like a clown. So make sure your framing narrows my ballot , otherwise its a waste

Weighing

Weighing is so so so crucial plz weigh and that doesnt mean empty impact calc but real comparative and ballot direct weighing to make my job easier

I default to strength of link so give me the cleanest link to vote on or give me a reason to vote elsewhere

weighing is always nice to start early bc i find that its far more substantive that way but new weighing can be done in any speech unless its a more technical weighing mechanism in which case it should be explained earlier in the round

Evidence

You can paraphrase but I'll like you a lot more if you don't especially since most paraphrased cards are just one sentence blips

email chain is highly encouraged and is great for improving ev ethics so see the speaks section for the email chain bonus

I don't like calling for evidence unless the text and credibility of the evidence is heavily contested and unresolved within the round, otherwise its your job to explain your evidence and its your job to disprove my opponents evidence ("call for it" is not an argument)

Extensions

This is debate, you should be sufficiently explaining your arguments which means that unless an argument is grossly conceded, I should not hear excessively blippy link extensions

Without warrant extension and explanation, you don't have an argument

Generally the bigger the impact, the more you should be explaining but if I hear that any argument causes extinction without an explanation of how it does so, I'll be unhappy considering my fondness for extinction scenarios.

Theory

Theory is great, I'm cool with almost any theory so long as it is not marginalizing in any way but I love me disclosure, paraphrasing, email chain, or whatever you can think of but preround abuse shells should probably be read in constructive unless the abuse is revealed later in the round and in that case important to the round

I default competing interps, No RVIs

Don't read theory on novices (duh)

If you don't know how to properly extend and weigh theory, the round will be annoying and unfun so please don't do that

Kritiks

I can't guarantee that I'll understand of the more complex Ks that have been popping up in LD over the past few years but more common ones should be a safe bet and I’ll definitely enjoy hearing the K, IF RAN WELL

Once again, don't run these on novices

Plans/CPs

These are fine mostly, but make them purposeful, interesting and not easily permable bc otherwise you have wasted all of our time

PICs are trash don't read them, CPs should also compete with aff unless its funny as hell

Speech by Speech

Overall do whatever you want but its probably better to be line by line til summary then collapsing into a more big picture FF but line by line throughout isn't really an issue as long as you weigh

Constructives - do whatever u want

1st Rebuttal - offensive OVs/DAs are cool, needs to respond to any framing, underviews or prefiat arguments from constructive

2nd Rebuttal - everything for 1st rebuttals goes for 2nd but any and all turns/terminal D are conceded if dropped in second rebuttal so its probably strategic to start collapsing if you are getting dumped

1st Summary - any mitigatory defense that 2nd rebuttal doesn't respond to is sticky but terminal D and turns need to be extended, first summary can frontline 2nd rebuttal w new args but thats the last time i should be hearing new arguments

2nd Summary - extend all defense, offense and weighing you want in 2nd Final Focus, otherwise im not voting on it

1st Final Focus - no new args here except weighing, everything else should have been in summary

2nd Final Focus - everything should have been in summary but plz do not put everything in summary into this speech

Speaks

Speaking is hard sometimes and it doesnt matter as much as argumentation and strategy but clear speakers are still going to get better speaks

speaks are adjusted based on prestige and competitiveness of the tournament

>27.5 = you were either very rude or morally reprehensible

27.5 - 28 = probably need a lot of work

28 - 28.5 = not bad but still could improve

28.5 - 29 = pretty solid debater, can probably break

29 - 29.5 = very good, probably wins an out round or two

29.5 - 30 = great debater and impressive to watch, late outs or chance to win the tourney and a great model for other debaters

Hi, I'm Elijah -

Email chain: nastudent21@gmail.com

North Allegheny '21

Carolina Chapel Hill '25 | Psych major

Quals -

a) competitive success: broke at 1st circuit tourney I attended (Yale '19), octas Princeton '19, 11th prelim seed/9th speaker Loyola '20, NSDA Academic All-American, qualified to nat trad tourneys (NSDA/CFL/PHSSLs) all 4 HS years, won some locals

b) leadership: HS deb8 VP (senior year), secretary (junior year), event leader (HS+MS), and camp coordinator

How I judge -

Read anything that isn't repugnant. I've cut/spread everything from hard-right heg good to hard-left pess Ks. So pull out your aprioris/indexicals/paradoxes, theoretical phil NCs, radical pess Ks, fav extinction policy disad, or a K/performance aff. My goal is to judge as robotically/tabula rosa as possible to avoid judge intervention. Weighing is super important (you tell me if extinction outweighs oppression or if reps come before content). I flow off what I hear, not the doc (spread however fast you want and if its too fast for me I'll just say slow/clear. However, I think I'll be good). I only use the doc for ev ethics/quality checks if its disputed in round.

I'm still happy to judge traditional/lay deb8 (again, it's your deb8 = you do you).

Feel free to ask me any questions you have and call me Elijah/Eli/judge (whatever makes you feel most comfortable).

Howdy, y'all!

My name is Tarun. I did 3 years of Debate for Bentonville HS and currently compete in college. I specialized in BQ and PF and competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and have a base knowledge of Worlds. I also know a lot about speech, so that shouldn't be an issue.

General notes for all styles [PF, CX, LD, WS, BQ]

Add me to the email chain pls(taruneisen61@gmail.com)! I am tech > truth. I will buy any arguments, as long as they are extended, warranted, etc. Make sure to collapse on weak args and extend on the winning ones. I think that while FW is important, it isn't the main attraction. If you're running prog, make sure everyone is okay with it. Please don't run Trix and theory shells just to get that easy dub against a novice. I prefer debates on substance, but if it turns into a technicality debate, make sure it's good. If the round turns into a definition debate, I will give everyone 26's. Please bring up all-new cards before FF. I also will not evaluate new contentions beyond 1st AC/NC. Please signpost as well, and give a roadmap. This allows everyone to keep everything organized and allows a clear mind. All weighing and impacts should start in Rebuttal, but I will buy it in Summary if it's strong enough. Link chains should also be presented in Rebuttal and extended through FF. I am not a fan of judge intervention, so make sure the ballot is crystal clear. I will also keep time, so if you go over time, I will stop flowing. You can finish your sentence, but beyond that, I won't flow anything else. Also, speed is fine, but don't spread (unless policy). Again, don't run abusive args. 

Evidence

I love evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case, make sure you have the cut card, or at the very least, the URL for me to find it. Please warrant cards and show why they are both unique and impactful. I will call for any cards that I need, so please have them handy. I always had cut cards when I competed, so please have them. Make sure the cards actually say what you're telling. If you're going to present more cards in Rebuttal and Summary, warrant them and tell me why they outweigh the other side. Make sure those cards are also cut. If you just say the card (e.g., Jones 20) and give me info, but don't warrant it and show why it actually matters, I most likely won't buy it. If the source is biased or flawed, make it an issue. I won't buy new evidence past Summary, so any significant cards have them before that.

Cross X:

Please be respectful. I don't flow CX, but I will pay attention. If you're rude or a bully, I will down your speaker points. I am also chill with flex prep, but make sure your opponents are also okay with it. This time also shows how you flourish with direct questioning, so try your best.

Weighing/Voters:

Just because you say something's a voter does not automatically make it one. Make sure you tell me why this warranted voter is crucial. I will weigh probability, magnitude, timeframe (in that order of importance). Please do all weighing starting in Rebuttal, but I will accept it if you start in summary if it is crazy important. Any beyond that will not be bought. Be sure all voters are fleshed out, warranted, all that jazz. All voters should be in Summary. You can do voters in Rebuttal, but Summary is that last chance. Please show why you outweigh the opponents. It does me and you no good to show weighing A, B, C, but not why they matter more than opp. weighing D, E, F.

Last-minute thoughts:

-I will ave. speaker points at 28.5, but will go up and down accordingly.

-If you make a joke, I will up speaker points, but it has to be good or so bad it's amazing. Any bland jokes will lose speakers.

-Any Eisen cards will raise speaks by 0.5

-If you run Texas theory shell, I will give you L20. So just don't do it.

Otherwise, I am looking forward to seeing y'all debate!

This also, I must admit, is not my real paradigm. Continue the wild goose chase: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=403741

IE’s: be clear with your message, enunciate your words; engage your audience in your presentation..

Spread:

-You can go as fast as you can maintain clarity>speed so I can understand what you're saying. Going way too fast can make me lose some things you're saying and don't put it on my flow, so do that at your own risk.

Weighing:

-Don't just state your impact, constantly tell me why your impacts are better/have more weight on this round than the impacts of the opposite team. Without weighing, it's gonna be difficult for you to get my vote.

Signpost:

-Signposting is way too important for me to know where to locate your answers to the other team arguments. It makes it easier for you and makes it easier for me to flow.

Some extra stuff:

-State warrants as much as you state impacts.

-I like frameworks but please, if you're going to have one, don't drop it in the middle of the debate, constantly restate it.

-Have fun guys and any questions, don't hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

he / him

My email for the chain is hbharper8@gmail.com but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round / my RFD

tldr: I am okay with anything you run as long as you are respectful.

Fun Facts:

I did PF from 2015-19

I do not like to base my ballot only on disclosure theory or topicality, so you shouldn't make those your only voters.

I do not like when teams try changing the structure (speech times) of the round with theory.

I don't expect you to necessarily run a counter-interp against theory if you don't know how to do that. Just engage with the substance of their theory argument like any other argument.

I will probably tell your first speaker that they went for too much in summary.

I think in summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal but I will accept responses in second sum as well - just no new turns.

No offensive off-case arguments in the second rebuttal.

Speaker points:

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Yelling / being mean in cross will hurt your speaks.

********************************************************************************************

I will give teams 1 extra speaker point per speaker if they properly use an email chain during the round. This means:

-Case writeup with the cards used in case below should be sent in a word/google document (like this) BEFORE your first constructive speech

-Any cards being planned on read after that should be sent in a word/google document (like this) right BEFORE it is read in speech.

This likely means you'll have to cut your cards BEFORE ROUND (I know, shocker!). Don't be spending 5 minutes cutting cards during the round to earn this point, you'll each lose half a point as a result if you do. Case docs should be ready to send the second you enter the call too

Email is adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu.

***********************************************************************************************

I'm a 4th year bioengineering student at UC Berkeley, and I've competed in PF for about 5 years in middle and high school.

Lets start with the obvious: DON'T BE RACIST TRANSPHOBIC HOMOPHOBIC SEXIST ABLEIST ELITIST OR EXCLUSIVE IN ANY WAY OR I WILL DROP YOU, GIVE YOU 0 SPEAKS, AND MAYBE MORE.

-Warrants in everything are especially important to me, and it's really important your warrants are clear. Lack of clarity will make me confused, drop your speaks and most likely drop you the round.

-Additionally, I look for the path of least resistance to the ballot. In other words, if you have an argument that's been clean dropped and you weigh that argument very well, 8/10 times I'm voting on that argument.

-The best way to create a clear-cut path to the ballot and follow the first two bullet points is by collapsing well on good arguments, especially in the second half of the round. Collapsing creates a much more narrowed/focused round that is easier to judge and follow, and it allows you to nuance and explain your arguments more fully. The more in-depth analysis you do when collapsing/as a result of collapsing, the more likely I'll vote for you.

-For the most part, anything that you say in final focus should be in summary. On the note of the second half of the round/frontlining in 2nd rebuttal or whatever,...I don't care. Just be consistent. Specifically:

----If you frontline in 2nd rebuttal, it's gonna be hard for me to accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. I'll give more leeway for defense that's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal but almost impossible for turns.

----So long as the defense is untouched, first speaking teams can extend defense from first rebuttal to first final focus. But if the first speaking team extends defense in first summary, that defense is the only defense that can be extended into final focus.

-You can start your weighing whenever, even in final focus. But BIG weighing mechanisms (like those overviews that outline a certain argument/impact as the most important in the round for example) should arrive before second rebuttal. On that note, weigh! It's good to get the ballot. Not just buzz words. But like, actual weighing. Answer questions like these in your weighing: "How does your impact outweigh on magnitude?"

-Lastly on the note of the second half of the round, and I cannot stress this enough: YOU HAVE TO EXTEND EVERY PART OF THE ARGUMENT YOU WANT ME TO EVALUATE. THIS INCLUDES THE LINK, THE INTERNAL LINK(S), AND THE TERMINAL IMPACT OF YOUR ARGUMENT WITH THE WARRANTS FOR EACH PART OF THE ARGUMENT. NOTHING BLIPPY!!

-Don't spread please. I'm good with a brisk pace of talking (If you're confused, err on the side of slightly slower instead of slightly faster).

-I'm not extremely familiar with more technical argumentation (K's, theory, etc.). My philosophy is that while they look more "spooky" or "cool", all arguments share the same structure, where they require some sort of link, an explanation for why it matters (an impact) and warrants all throughout and in between. So just make sure to make the warranting for these arguments crystal clear.

-On that note for theory, the bar for whether or not a team is abusive is quite high. So run at your own risk. If you do think that your theory shell is very warranted and the abuse is substantial and you want to win off of it, I should expect it to dominate your speech time in the second half of the round. As in your entire FF should be dedicated to the shell that you read. Also if you read theory, I'm more inclined to listen to a well hashed shell compared to "paragraph theory." It's easier to flow and simply more clear for me. But I won't get angry at you if you read paragraph theory.

-And lastly don't know much, if anything, about the topic, and definitely not familiar with the topic lit at all. So clarity in warrant/impact analysis and extension of arguments and whatnot is esp key to pick up my ballot this tournament.

Good luck and have fun! Any questions email me at adnan.m.ismail@berkeley.edu

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

Munster HS, IN 2014-2018: 4 Years of Public Forum Debate (3-Time National Qualifier, IN State Champion, TOC Silver PF 2018)

1 Year of Congressional Debate

2 Years, Vol. Asst. Debate Coach, Bloomington High School South

Indiana University- Bloomington, O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Class of 2021

- Maurer School of Law, Class of 2026

he/him; jargon-friendly, speed-friendly, overall I want the round to be accommodating to different styles of debating and debaters of different backgrounds

Policy

Default to Policymaker to counter small school/circuit/state bias. However, if the other team is comfortable with it (you can just ask generally beforehand), I will entertain most theory/SPEC/K's/etc. that's not totally out there

LD

Theoretical Legislator (perhaps philosopher in this case); in the words of a legend of my tiny circuit, I am dumb as a stump. Teach me.

Public Forum (my wheelhouse):

Pre-Fiat/K's

PF is PF; I don't want to go down a rabbit hole of Kritikal aff's or asinine theory shells (outside of egregious abuse which I will flow). Still, debate is about interrogating topics and getting someone to listen, so I am absolutely a proponent of debating in a critical lens (impacting marginalized communities especially); however, be wary of the commodification of the ballot. If it's topical/resolutional, I will listen to whatever you say about it.

Terminal D/Turns

Not that complicated, second rebuttal should respond to turns and start to tell me what you're going for, so that second summary and ff can be about weighing. First summary should do a lot of the same and extend some of the turns, but I could grant leeway based on the speed/structure of the second rebuttal

Evidence

Feel free to paraphrase cards but it better say what you claim it says because I will call cards based on when its extended/if I'm asked to call for it. Cut cards are acceptable, I will only ask for more based on an accusation of clipping or something similar.

Crosses

A sin I committed as a debater that I'm attempting to atone for now is being unnecessarily aggressive in crossex/fire, especially towards teams with debaters of different genders. Crosses are important rhetorically and can be funny and exciting but I will dock points for either side being overly dismissive/aggressive. I also prefer crosses to be about substance rather than in-round strategy. Bonus points if you can indict evidence at the start of crossfire.

Also, for the love of Ashtar, tell me what to weigh, tell me how to weigh it, tell me why I should weigh it. I'm a judge, not just a flow. Tech and truth are both important.

As always, any deliberately offensive (racist, sexist, classist, ad hominem) argument will get you docked.

Worlds (lol)

I will listen to whatever you say. If you are a worlds competitor looking at a judge's paradigm: (1) what; and (2) your job is to entertain and educate me for however long a world school's round is.

I'm dabbled in a lot styles of debate including LD, PF, and currently do WSD, was mediocre tbh lol, and I'll flow as best as I can.

General:

1. Weighing is so important, cannot stress this enough. I prefer comparative weighing more than anything rather than empty buzz words. Weighing before final focus is nice, v substantive.

2. Clarity > Speed. Honestly, not a big fan of speed in general, but especially with online tournaments bc my wifi can be a little wack and too difficult to keep up with over vc. If you're going to be spreading, send the speech doc over email (madeline.ou@gmail.com) or discord.

3. Extensions should be down all the way from fiat to impact, it's not enough to quickly say the tagline again, reexplain the warranting.

4. Frontlining should be down in first summary, esp. with the extra minute. For second rebuttal, I'm chill with not frontlining everything, but turns are a must.

5. Theory is fine, not the biggest fan, but if you're going to be running it, make sure you believe in the theory you're running and make it take a large portion of your time. I won't be looking towards frivolous theory like citation theory, ect.

6. don't be rude and say morally wack things , p self explanatory lmao

also for speaks generally (28-30) pretty chill with speaks

I was a PF debater for 4 years. I also have some experience in Policy.

A few notes:

1. Weigh

Please weigh, it is how you win the round. If you make me weigh, then I have to add my own opinions on the validity of your arguments into the round. Please start weighing before your final focus. Impacting to lives saved is not an automatic trump card, you must tell me why saving lives is more important than your opponent's impacts. Magnitude is not the only way to weigh (no pun intended), so please try to use other methods (I think probability is a very underused weighing mechanism). I vote off of impacts and weighing, not warrants, so please make sure you are consistently flowing your impacts through and make sure you weigh, at the very least in your Final Focus.

2. Clarity

PF debating is meant to be judged by a layperson, please speak at a reasonable speed. While I will understand if you speak in PF speed, but not spreading, I may not have time to write it down and I am more likely to miss something. If it is important to your case, please emphasize it and make sure I know it is important. Please explain your entire case. My dad judged a national tournament with the UNCLOS topic and at the end of the tournament, I asked him what he thought UNCLOS was and he said, "something to do with the South China Sea." Don't assume I know that FDI means Foreign Direct Investment and don't assume that because you quickly defined the acronym once means I'll remember by the end of your case. If your argument is convoluted, please explain it. If your link chain is convoluted, I have no idea whether or not it is reasonable, so I cannot vote for it, so please make sure you clearly explain all your arguments and impacts.

3. Evidence

If your opponent asks for evidence, show them a PDF unless they specifically say they would rather see the card. Please have your evidence organized. While I am not setting a time limit on how long it takes to find your evidence, if you are taking a long time I will ask you to drop the card. If you believe your opponents have misconstrued their card, please bring it up in the round and then ask me to call for the card in Final Focus. Also, just because a card says something doesn't mean it's true, you must explain the warrant— a warranted analytic response is better than an unwarranted card. Note for online tournaments: Please add me to your email chains, but I will not be looking at any of the cards unless a team asks me to until after I have made my decision (I would then look to give feedback for future rounds).

4. Crossfire

I will pay attention to crossfire and take notes to provide feedback, but anything important that comes up in crossfire must be brought back up in one of your speeches or I will disregard it.

5. Frontline

If your team is speaking second, please do the bulk of your frontlining in rebuttal. Your opponents cannot be expected to respond to frontlines in their final focus.

6. Signpost

Please signpost. It makes it easier for me to flow and follow what you are saying, and if I better keep track of your arguments and follow them, then I will be better able to judge your arguments.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

I employ a simple rubric when judging: (a) logical reasoning (b) strong evidence (c) effective rebuttal/refuting of opponent's claims (d) strong clash (e) clear articulation of argument and (e) respect. I'm a relatively inexperienced judge, so I'll ask debaters to inform me if I'm missing something regarding technicalities/protocol or could be doing something to enable a better debate.

Hey y'all

I'm a fourth-year debater from Vestavia Hills High School.

Case: Make sure your case has impacts. It is hard for me to vote on an argument that doesn't tell me how or which population is affected by their impacts. However, make sure you also have warrants. Even if your case has big numbers, I will not evaluate any of your impacts if you don't give me any explanations as to how you get there. Don't worry if your case does not get to 4 minutes; I still evaluate all arguments presented in that timeframe.

Speaking: Speak clearly. For me, you can go a little bit fast and I will still be able to understand your argument. However, I will indicate for you to slow down if you are going too fast. Most importantly, mumbling is gonna negatively affect your speaker points and make it a lot harder to understand. Send speech docs if you plan on spreading. Email is aaryaaluri143@gmail.com

Prog: By all means go ahead and do it. Just beware that my experience with progressive args is pretty limited to theory. I'll evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

Rebuttal: Prioritize offense over defense. In 1st rebuttal, do not go back onto your case unless it is an absolute necessity and you believe you have no other way to fill the 4 minutes. Weighing is not a necessity in 1st rebuttal but it would be good if you started weighing early in round. Weighing should be in 2nd rebuttal. No talking between teammates in rebuttal or any speech for that matter. 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense that 1st rebuttal brings. 2nd rebuttal would be good to collapse but it is not required for me. Defense is not sticky.

Weighing: WEIGHING IS NECESSARY. I must know why your argument is more important than theirs to be able to vote for you. Additionally, weighing can't be one-sided. You must weigh COMPARING your impact to theirs as opposed to just restating their impact. It can start in rebuttal but IT MUST START IN SUMMARY.

Summary: 1st summary MUST COLLAPSE ON ONE ARGUMENT. Summary must also respond to all offense presented on ALL of their contentions. Summary must also have clean extensions of their case and turns in order for them to stay on my flow. 2nd summary is largely a reactive speech that must respond to the points brought up by 1st summary.

Final Focus: Largely resembles summary. NO NEW INFORMATION IN FINAL FOCUSES. Weighing, case extensions and turn extensions must be present.

Have fun with this activity. It gives back what you give it. You make connections the more you stay in the activity. I will do my best to ease your nerves and help y'all grow in this adventure.

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

Tempus Debate

College: Harvard Community College '27

By the transitive property, I have over 20 Gold PF Bids.

I debated for Vestavia Hills High School for 2 years and then I moved so now I mainly coach teams. I mainly competed on nat circ so I am able to adapt to any style you would like.

Im completely tech and tabula rasa , so I judge rounds off the flow. Ive seen rounds where I could have technically voted off a leaf falling off a plant has a better link in to extinction than nuke war so take that as you want ig. Debate is a game. Tbh, debate lay or hard tech in front of me idgaf!

Main Reason for debate: Have Fun. Learn how to become better from your losses.

If you give me some fun phrases during the round such as "they dropped this contention so hard I might have even heard a thud." or "This gives us the cleanest access to our impact. It's so clean it's squeaky!" I will give you an extra speak. Im a cool judge, don't make this a boring round.

-----

-----

-----

Pref Chain

(1 being pref me and 5 being strike me)

Command+ F Progressive and you'll get there if that is what you want to know about btw

Trad Deb8: 1

Speed (250 wpm w/o doc anything above, j send a doc idgaf): 1

DA: 1

FW: 1

Theory/Topicality: 2

Kritique (Idpol, Word PIK, Performance): 2

Kiritique (advanced/high theory; Baudy, Delueze, Marx etc - ill try my best): 3-4

Counter Plan: 3-4

Phil: 5

LARP: 2-3

Tricks: 5 - I dare you lmao

Spikes: 5

-----

-----

-----

TL;DR

- PF paradigm is at the beginning, LD is at the bottom

- 100% tab and tech --> AL circuit, just treat me as the most tech judge.

- Im cool with speed. Especially cuz its all online, id like that you send me a speech doc j for AC/NC & AR/NR. If your rebuttal isn't on a doc, that's fine.

- Go crazy with args. Ive run super crazy cases before so go for it if you want, just make sure you know your own case. Run death good if u want idgaf. Btw Thicc Nicc Bostrom 4Life :)

- For any progressive arguments you want to run, all I ask for when you run prog args is that you send me a speech doc for it so I can get it all down. Keep ur own time. For more details, j look at the prog arg section.

- I understand the need for calling cards, i do it, just don't take more than 2 minutes to pull up a card. Everything you say should have the cut card with it. Do not misconstrue ev. L20, no exceptions.

- Second rebuttal must frontline all offensive/defensive responses made on your case.

- Defense is not sticky, so you must extend anything you want in FF in summary.

-TKOs are a thing and im willing to allow it but i have never judged a round where there is no way to go and find a ballot. So be careful when calling out a TKO before like 2nd summary or final. If u mess up, its gg, u lost bud.

-----

-----

-----

***Most Online Tournaments***

Yes Add me to the chain zthomas8491@gmail.com

Because this tournament is online, please send me speech docs to my email (zthomas8491@gmail.com). My internet can be spotty at some times so I recommend to not talk to fast during summary or final focus because I might miss it, unless you use a speech doc for summary and final focus for some reason. Also, for speech docs, please have cut cards on it, NO PARAPHRASING PLEASE --> I will doc speaks if there is any miscut evidence! If you have another case that isn't paraphrased, please read it instead. Paraphrasing in PF has become a major ethics issue so try to have normal cut cards instead pls, ty.

-----

-----

-----

***Tempus Debate LD Camp Tournament***

Ik im PF chair but i have experience in LD. LAWs topic was fun so run whatever you want tbh. Im fine with it. Im p chill. If you do plan on spreading for some reason: 1. you need to annunciate and 2. don't be abusive to your opponent. Speaks will be chill dw. You prob won't know too much of what i have put in teh LD section so i wouldn't worry about it. Just use what you have learned and apply it. This is a learning experience for you!

-----

-----

-----

Paradigm

Novice PF:

If you are just starting out...these are 2 really good resources to learn the basics of PF

https://pfforward.weebly.com/

https://www.learnpublicforum.com/

Couple notes just for novices...do these 4 things and do them correctly and I will definitely give you good speaks and you might even win.

1--> Speak Clearly (MEGA IMPORTANT) if you don't speak clearly, then I have no idea what to flow on paper and you will prob take the L :(

2 --> Weigh weigh weigh (SUPER IMPORTANT) look a little bit lower in my paradigm nad you'll find the weighing section

3 --> Collapse (PRETTY IMPORTANT) as a novice that was in your shoes, i know you want to go for every argument but it really is that good of a strat, instead go for your strongest argument and really flesh it out on the flow.

4--> Frontline & Extend (VERY IMPORTANT) if you don't extend arguments on the flow, I will have no idea what you are going for and you will probably sadly take the L :(

-----

-----

-----

Other notes for Novices...

I will not allow novices to run any progressive arguments because most novices I have judged, they all said they new what they were doing but then completely failed in debating the argument.

If you have any questions after round, ask them but don't be too aggressive please, so no post-rounding my decision.

-----

-----

-----

Varsity PF:

Favorite Debate:

A good substance debate buuutttt, I'll evaluate theory. If you want to run frivolous theory, go for it. If you can prove to me that Ghandi said, "If freedom don't ring, the choppa gonna sing" instead of MLK, i'll buy it. I ask that you confirm with your opponents if they are OK for you to run theory. If I think you are running theory on a team that doesn't know how to respond to it or have never experienced a progressive round, PLEASE do not run it otherwise I WILL DOCK SPEAKS and possilbly DROP YOU for setting bad norms in the debate space. You have to keep it fair otherwise people are not going to be happy. I'd recommend you run a substance debate more though because that will lead to a way better ballot as I understand a regular debate more. I debate this topic in a lot of tournaments so I understand it pretty well so it would be better if you do run a regular substance debate. And for the love of god, please don't run disclosure...it is so dumb. Good Luck :))

-----

-----

-----

tech>truth:

Arguments need to be well warranted: tell me why the link/internal link/impact matters. I believe that there is a great value to flow-centric, line-by-line debating. Though I don't claim to have the best flow in the country, I believe many debates can be simplified and made clearer by emphasizing the basics of lining arguments up and answering them accordingly. Not only will teams have a better chance to win my ballot by attempting some semblance of organization, but I believe the overall clash of argumentation that would result from this focus could yield more in depth scholarship and understanding of the topic being discussed. Debaters should clearly flag pieces of evidence they want evaluated after the debate. Failure to do so will more than likely result in me evaluating the round sans calling for cards.

-----

-----

-----

Clarity>speed:

I would put myself at a 7/10 for speed, so...DO NOT SPREAD. Max = 275 wpm. I do sometimes speak like 350 wpm but its pretty stupid so don't do it. Just because I debate doesn't mean I want people spreading like crazy. If you want to spread, you should try out policy debate, it'll be a good experience for you. If you truly feel the urge to spread, share a speech doc with me (zthomas8491@gmail.com). I believe that spreading is useless because it just shows that you want to get a bunch of ink on the paper but you will probably be dropping half of the stuff so why don't you tell me 3 or 4 really good warranted analysis responses instead of reading 8 to 15 responses that have the crappiest warrant and a horrible analysis. I'm ok with speed as long as it is clear, if not, I will say clear to tell you that I am unable to understand. If I still can't understand your speech, I will not flow it and I might dock a speak or 2.

-----

-----

-----

Warranting:

Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what the evidence says. I like critical thinking. Smart, well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. If you are winning the warrant debate, you are probably winning the round for me.

-----

-----

-----

WEIGH:

The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged, but with 3 min summaries I am less lenient. Also on weighing, I'm stealing a quote from Brian Zhu's paradigm: "I think of weighing in layers, beginning with probability. You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc." In other words: I tell you to weigh, u don't, u L :)

If you *meta-weigh properly* i will give you a 30 even if you didn't match up with the requirements for a 30.

-----

-----

-----

Off-time Roadmap/Signpost:

Right before you start the speech, give me an off-time roadmap BUT DON'T SAY THE PHRASE "OFF TIME ROADMAP", I'll take 1 speak away if you do. Even though you give me an offtime roadmap --> PLEASE tell me where you are on the flow (signpost). If I look confused, then it probably means that I don't know where you are and it makes it much harder for me to properly flow the round

-----

-----

-----

Time:

You guys are BIG KIDZ so KEEP YOUR OWN TIME

-----

-----

-----

Flex-Prep:

Im fine with it, i think it can be useful sometimes but don't abuse it pls.

-----

-----

-----

Cross:

Don't be a jerk but don't be a wimp. I like cross to get tense, but not to where someone is about to cry because you are being an overly dominant bully. Remember, cross-fire is for asking clarification questions and trying to get good information from the other teams. I don't flow cross, so if you think something important came up in cross and it has an impact on the round, bring it up. Don't bring up some random argument from cross if it is just a small argument compared to the ones where there can be some good clash.

-----

-----

-----

Frontline

IF YOU DON'T FRONTLINE, YOU BASICALLY SCREW YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING, IF BOTH TEAMS DON'T FRONTLINE, THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT ROUND TO JUDGE AND TO WATCH.

--> 2nd rebuttal must respond to the 1st rebuttal --> if you drop the points made in 1st rebuttal, thats a rip for you, you have just given up all defense on your case and they have shredded your case apart

--> 1st summary must respond to the 2nd rebuttal > if you drop the points made in 2nd rebuttal, rip to you, you have just screwed your chance of winning.

NO NEW ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN 2ND SUMMARY OR FINAL FOCUS!! I give a very small amount of leniency for the 1st summary as they do have to frontline the 2nd Rebuttal but, you should definitely collapse in summary so it makes it easier for you to properly warrant your responcss and make arguments that are for big brains. (a frontline is not a "new argument/evidence btw in case you didn't know that).

-----

-----

-----

Collapse:

Collapsing is definitely based on how the round goes but I recommend that you do it so you can pave the way for a better ballot. Unless you are completely destroying the team, you should collapse. I don't care tbh, but collapsing makes the round much cleaner and more smooth and less things all over the place that I have to eval.

-----

-----

-----

Extensions:

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

If you don't really get this by now you're probably gonna lose the round.

-----

-----

-----

Offense>weighing>defense

Anything that you want in the FF must be in the summary

I will not flow any new analysis or evidence in FF

-----

-----

-----

Evidence

these are OK cut cardz //// This a godly cut card( Thank you Christian Vasquez for the OK cut cards and thank you to the GRIDIRON CHOPPA....COLE STACEY for the godly cut cardz).

If the card is miscut or cannot be found within a decent amount of time (2min) it will be dropped from my flow. In the off chance you paraphrase cards (pls don't but if it is ur only option), it should not be misconstrued and the actual card should still be cut. You MUST have the cut card.

-----

-----

-----

Overviews

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense --> --> --> --> I do not react well to these and find them extremely abusive, but I will flow them. However, if this new contention comes out in second rebuttal the other team can just tell me it's abusive / to cross it off the flow and I will. If I cross it off, it was a waste of your time and mine.

2) An overall response to their case. --> --> --> --> GREAT IDEA.

3) Weighing overviews. --> --> --> --> AMAZING IDEA

Weighing>>>>>>>>>Overall Response>>>>>>>>>>>New Offense, ie super offensive DA in 2nd rebuttal

-----

-----

-----

-----

---

+Progressive Arguments+ --> *Mainly for PF but can be applied to LD also*

---

*I will tell you if i don't want you running Prog args in a round dependent on how i feel abt it...so tell me and your opponenets if you are running a prog arg and i will let you know if it is a green light for it (the only time you are exempt from it is if the opposing team paraphrased for example but couldn't give any cards for you, i would allow paraphrase theory to be run)*

*If you are a novice and you get theory run on you, yes, i will give the other team low speaks but j saying "im. a novice..you can't run theory on me" does not count for me. J make a novice theory shell saying why running theory on novices is bad and ill prob eval it (only if it is actually decent and makes sense) and ill j go to the substance debate.*

-----

-----

-----

BQ:

Ima be straight, math = dumb

I cut a card abt it, that's how strong i feel abt math lmao.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Peo4ZpfiklAuNsyTHpM7fVzqt9K4cbO8TT9HKPgqrkM/edit?usp=sharing

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

Fiat:

- If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through Congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

-----

-----

-----

Framework:

- I default to Cost Benefit Analysis, otherwise known as the Analysis of Benefits and Costs. But, I am fine with framework debates, they make the round more organized because it kind of forces you to properly flesh out certain arguments in order to best access the framework.

- When reading a framework that has to do with structurally oppressed people (especially with the Septober '20 topic) don't make a framework that can basically be turned against you, like PLEASE GIVE A WARRANT on why these marginalized people should be "solved" and why they come first before others. Basically, don't read a framework that can be contested with util.

- Fairness is not necessarily an impact; it certainly may implicate the education that the aff produces, but calling fairness "procedural" doesn't bestow upon it some mystical external impact without additional explanation (i.e. without an actual impact attached to that). Fairness is an abstract value. Like most values, it is difficult to explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven. It's hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" It is pretty easy to demonstate why you should presume in favor of fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity (for example, teams expect that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothes). But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

- If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than most attempts to articulate one for fairness/skills/deliberation, but they're not unassailable: "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would) and "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

-----

-----

-----

T/Theory:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

- Paraphrasing bad, disclosure is ok, misgendering bad, no tw bad. I won't hack for anything, but this is my general viewpoint of these issues.

- No RVIs. --> "RVIs are dumb, you don't get to win for proving you are ethical. I suppose I can see myself voting for an RVI if someone horrifically mishandles it, but if theres warranted clash on the issue of RVIs, I generally think no-RVIs." - Enebo

- I am down for some frivolous theory.

- I like theory shells to be in standard form (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters) no paragraph form.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- I won't necessarily default to competing interps, reasonability, or other frameworks, etc. There are general parts of T (interp, violation, standards-voters, impacts, etc). If you go for T, then give me thorough reasons to vote for T. On aff, I think it is strategic that you can make theory or pre-fiat arguments that precede Topicality.

- For any T argument, if you want my ballot on it, you need to win the interpretation/violation, give a good explanation of the impacts (voters), and win some standards which prove your interpretation solves the impacts. This stuff can get developed in the block, but just extending a shell isn't going to do it.

- Theoretical reasons to prefer/reject an ethical theory are generally pretty terrible arguments. This includes: Must Concede FW, May Not Concede FW, Util is Unfair, Only Util is Fair, etc. You should prove that you're right, not that it's educational to pretend that you are. Many 'role of the ballot' arguments are just theoretically justified frameworks by another name, and I feel similarly about these. I also do not assume by default that your warrant comes logically prior to your opponent's because you referenced "education" or "ground"; the falsity of a standard seems at least as salient a reason not to require debaters to use it.

- Competing interpretations means that I evaluate theory through an offense-defense paradigm; it does not require a counter-interpretation. A corollary is that I literally do not understand how a difference between potential and articulated abuse would function. I am, of course, willing to listen to arguments which dispute either of those claims, but they’re an uphill battle.

- I will not vote for reasonability absent an explicit bright line. I prefer standards-level strength of link weighing (who has a better internal link to fairness or education) over generic fairness vs education debates, although the latter tends to be more strategic. Absent weighing, I don’t have a default preference between fairness and education. I default to dropping the argument, not the debater, on all theory questions except status theory (conditionality).

-----

-----

-----

Disads:

- Don't read in 2nd rebuttal

- If u do read it, u must do weighing with it, or provide some sort of analysis that gives me a comparison between ur arg and theirs.

- DO NOT, run it as a 10th contention at the bottom of ur case j for 2nd speaking team to have to cover that too. DA's that act as overviews are the best.

- I like the specific DA debate, if you decide to go for DA(s). This means that when you win the DA, you should also be winning a DA-case comparison (for example: DA outweighs case, DA turns case, etc.).

- "Zero risk" is certainly possible but often unlikely. What I mean by this is that if the neg says "The plan leads to an increase in hair loss, and warming causes extinction" and the aff says "No link--no warranted reason the aff leads to hair loss and no internal link between hair loss and warming," I'm not going to decide that since the aff only made defensive arguments that there's "only a risk" of the DA occurring. Smart defensive arguments (including and sometimes especially analytics) can take out entire disads and advantages, but if they're not terminal I am going to be more susceptible to "only a risk" logic.

-----

-----

-----

Kritiks:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

- I have started to judge, debate, and spec more rounds with Ks now. I think that PF definitely has room for K arguments to be read.

- I would say I'm comfortable to eval Ks, with that being said, I'm most sympathetic to K's that are using the round to make structural change within the debate community, ie. Word PIKs, Idpol, Performance type stuff. And those are the ones I'm most comfortable with. That doesn't mean u can't run Marxism or Delueze, Baudy etc, j dumb it down for me lol. I'm p chill when it comes to this stuff, especially since Ks are slowly moving into PF.

- No Identity Ks if you have no relation to that group...ill doc ur speaks like hell

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- The "aff didn't do enough" K isn't doing much for me. If this is your best option, I'd recommend T instead. Perms solve it and it's not offense.

- K debaters that can't debate the case enough to prove that the aff doesn't simply reduce military presence but somehow reinforces it or some other bad process in trying to do so are having a really hard time winning with me. You need links. "You touched the gov't" isn't getting the job done. If this is your best strat, I am not the judge for you.

- Negative state action undermines a lot of "we shouldn't have to debate as the gov't" args, absent more detailed elaboration by the aff team reading a non- topical or non-plan aff. I can personally entertain some reasons why this arg might still be true, but teams have yet to advance args that are not facile extensions of the standard "gov't bad" arg in explaining this for me. "Decrease military" and "gov't bad" are in the same direction on face. You'll need to do more to prove that they are not.

-----

-----

-----

K Affs

- K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

- K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively. This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

- K BECOMING AFF: Truth is bad. These affs include Postmodernism, Intersectionality, & Black Optimism. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

-----

-----

-----

CPs

- I have hit a CP once, and it was when i did an LD tourney, so take that as you want, im not a huge fan of them so run them at a ur own risk.

- Generic CP debates aren’t too interesting, but a well coupled counter plan and net benefit can be cool. Don’t assume I’ll kick the CP for you and assume that it’s conditional unless specified. Winning a high risk of a DA and a risk of the counterplan solving better than the aff makes for an easy neg ballot. For the aff team, point out solvency deficits, shady theory points, put offense on the CP, and make warranted permutations (more than 3 is probably not legit).

-----

-----

-----

Presumption:

In the terrible case that the whole round become a wash (i would most likely give low speaks if this happens btw) i presume 1st speaking team.

-----

-----

-----

LD:

I dabbled in LD throught my 2nd year of debating. Im p chill with it ngl.

Some things for LD...

CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

I will reference the doc when flowing, but I pay attention to what you're saying (won't miss any extemped args in the 1AC/1NC, and won't flow stuff that's in the doc but that you didn't read. Just lmk if u are extemping args).

Clarity > speed. You can go faster/be less clear for args that you've sent in the doc that I have a visual reference for. If you're not flashing your analytics don't blaze through them. Lowering speaks for entirely pre-written/scripted rebuttal

Sequencing, preclusion, weighing, and clearly delineated interactions are the keys to resolvability; I want my RFD to be repeating back arguments you've made. Most frustrating debates are when both sides are extending things that take out the other side's route to the ballot without weighing/interacting the two args that indict each other. Absent clear weighing I default to strength of link (i.e. two conceded fairness standards indict each other but some education standard is conceded, so I vote on the education standard).

Helpful to extend arguments by content (“extend permissibility affirms” vs. “extend spike 3 sub-point B”), and I have a very low threshold for extensions if an arg is conceded ("extend the framework" is sufficient if the framework is straight dropped, and don't even bother extending paradigm issues if its a theory debate and you both agree), but its still up to you to implicate dropped args strategically and explain what it takes out/why the drop is relevant

Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

Be nice to novices and traditional debaters, or else your speaks will suffer.

I don’t like it when the debaters are just jerks to each other in CX.

I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

My default assumption is nothing is important until an argument is made for why it is. This means if you read theory without drop the debater or arguments without framing mechanisms, I’ll just ignore them. This in particular applies to independent voters and perf con arguments because they don’t justify why they supersede other substantive issues and are drop the debater. The only things that I will default are consequentialism, strength of link in the absence of weighing, procedurals first, and epistemic confidence.

-----

-----

-----

-----

Speaks:

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Make me laugh and you’ll get higher speaks

30 - YOU ARE A COLE STACEY LEVEL DEBATER WITH ICONIC RISHI LINGALA VIBES AND HIS AMAZING SKILLS AT CARROLTON R1 (uncommon for me to give out) Belongs in late outrounds, flawless speaking ability and strategy [Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lmfao.] IF you are a RESIDENT then you will get auto 30. IF you know the ways of a THAD, auto 30 if u are wrong, auto L25

29.5 - Chad level ("bruh" - Cole Stacey) Mid/late outrounds, excellent speaking ability and strategy

29 - lad level ("ok bud" - Christian Rhoades) Should break, really good speaker, makes smart decisions

28.5 - Could break, could improve in EITHER speaking ability OR decision making, but excellent in 1 category

28 - Above average, could break, still a good debater, but has room for improvement in speaking and decision making

27.5 - Average, Either a good speaker and flawed decision maker, or a poor speaker and good decision maker

27 - Slightly below average, definitely has plenty of room for improvement as a debater

26.5 - Either struggling to speak during the round OR doesn't seem to understand their argument OR ignored my paradigm

26 - Struggling to speak during the round AND doesn't seem to understand their argument AND ignored my paradigm

25 - Offensive to others during the round

0-24: im sorry mate but i kinda failed at everything and did some bad stuff, oop

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS...*unless i am told not to by the tournament directors or if a team does not want me to disclose. *

-----

-----

-----

Credit to Sam Goldstone for this...

"A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH"

"ok bud" - Christian Rhoades