Tabroom.com

Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE

2020 — Discord, KY/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ayush Agarwal BooneToonRacoon

Griffin Amos Hire

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 1:41 PM EDT

important -

i wrote this when i was mostly judging pf, but i'm open to any types of arguments in policy. i pretty much exclusively read Ks when i debated, but i've voted on t-fw, politics disads, and all kinds of other boring arguments in the past too. more policy stuff is at the bottom, but ask questions before the round starts if you have any.

email me docs: griffinamos2@gmail.com

i debated for 4 years at cosby high school from 2016-2020 and did policy, ld, and pf. i also did apda a bit at william & mary. i've judged everything from local pf to NFA LD nats.

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn too

don't misgender someone, your speaks will get tanked and you'll pretty much auto lose if they make an argument about it

**ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR LOCALS - I'm only going to vote on the arguments in your last speech. Don't expect to win on a contention from your constructive if you just say "Oh and extend contention 1" - tell me the whole story and do comparative weighing.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are sus

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability)

what types of arguments do i like?

i will vote on anything that isn't problematic and i don't hack for any particular type of argument - i'm comfortable evaluating theory, kritiks, or any type of progressive argument because that is what my background is in.

the substance based debates i find myself enjoying the most generally incorporate some form of structural violence framing, i won't hack for or against it, that's just what the most interesting rounds to me look like. i find myself enjoying rounds where teams collapse on turns in the latter half too, this seems to happen pretty rarely in pf

the kritikal arguments i'm most familiar with are queer-pess, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and afro-pess but i think you should always explain every kritikal argument as if i'm a lay judge because i think kritiks in pf are too often run against teams that don't understand the arguments.

the theory arguments i find myself agreeing with the most are disclosure, any type of gendered language bad, paraphrasing bad, and trigger warning theory - again i won't hack for or against any of these, i'm just as willing to vote on disclosure bad as i am disclosure good - the exception for this is trigger warning theory, if you trigger someone and they make it clear they don't feel safe, i will drop you, end the round early, and give you the lowest speaks i can w/o having to justify it to tab.

i'll also begrudgingly vote on frivolous theory or trix if they're won - i'm super open to impact turns based on this type of argumentation though and feel like most of them tend to be true

technical stuff?

defense is sticky - i've been asked to include that turns are not defense

frontline in second rebuttal

don't read offensive overviews or disads in second rebuttal

i won't vote on a piece of offense unless it is in summary, and final focus - that includes the warranting for it, not just a blippy extension

theory?

read disclosure theory its just a true argument

i don't care if you read theory in shell format or more simply - all that's important is that all the crucial parts of the argument are there in some capacity - that means i want some interpretation on how you think debate should look, how the other team violates this, the reasons that debate should look this way, and why i should drop the other team for it

if you're going to read theory that is just like i should drop someone because they break x rule (maybe like "this tournament says u can't read counterplans so drop them for reading one"), you need to justify why the rule is good or following rules in general is good. just the fact that it is a rule is not persuasive to me, i don't care

defaults:

no rvis

competing interps

drop the arg

policy

mostly read Ks on aff and my 1ncs tended to be like a K, some dumb argument like the sorites paradox, some form of theory, and just dumping impact and link turns on case

open cross is chill, flex prep and using cross as prep are cool too

i hate the trend of just reading a string of cards on case in 1ncs. i love uncarded, but warranted arguments on case. solid warranting that comes from you is just as persuasive, if not more so, than warranting from some random card you stole from the wiki or camp files.

please stop going for every argument in your 2NR. respond to offense on arguments you're going to kick and then just give me a really persuasive story for why whatever you're collapsing on wins.

Zain Ashraf Hire

Cam Avery Hire

Last changed on Wed April 22, 2020 at 6:35 PM EDT

(they/them). Hello! First, a little about me. I’m a public speaker/debater from Canada, so my background at American events is non-existent. However, I’ve attended and won several national, provincial, and local tournaments here. Being from a country where Public Forum debate is rare means I’m not the best with the format’s vocabulary, so please bear with me if I use a different term for something than you’re used to.

I have a lot of thoughts on why debate matters, why we do it, and what the philosophy of judges should be. However, I don’t think any of that is vital to your decision of whether or not you want me evaluating you. I will say that in my eyes debate has never been about heaps of evidence or strategy. It’s about persuasion with reasoning and style, a mind game, not a research one, and that’s why I have the preferences I do. Here’s what you really need to know:

Please err strongly on the side of caution with trigger warnings: if you think you might need to include one, you should.

Besides that and saying offensive, bigoted, and/or disrespectful things (please don’t!), I'm not very picky. At the end of the day, if you make the best weighted, impacted, linked, and strongest arguments, I’ll vote for you.

That being said, I don’t like tricks, and I think theory should be used very sparingly. I’m not going to call for evidence unless I’m asked to or something seems extremely suspect.

I like it when teams roadmap and signpost. I value Crossfire a great deal, but I don’t like speakers being overly aggressive.

Kritiks are new to me so you’ll have to explain them and why they matter thoroughly.

Please speak as quickly or slowly as you’re comfortable speaking. As I noted earlier, I do value style to some extent, and I appreciate appropriate humour.

I give very, very high speaks, and I’ll disclose the results at the end.

Most importantly, I’ve been debating for 4.75 years and counting because I enjoy it. My ultimate goal is a fun round and I look forward to having several of them soon.

Rohan Bajpai Hire

Ashwin Harish Balaje Hire

Last changed on Fri November 20, 2020 at 12:24 PM CDT

I debated PF for four years (2016-2020) at Ravenwood HS in Brentwood, TN

I have some general expectations for round (copied mostly from Callan Hazeldine and Brian Zhu):

1.) The singular most important thing for me is 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 when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that 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.

2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument. Even in front of "flow" judges I believe there is an advantage to the "narrative" style of debate (even when combined with line-by-line).

3.) First summary should extend defense now that there is an extra minute. My philosophy of the 3 min summary is that you should go for the same content but with more explanation and depth, however some rounds may require new arguments to be introduced in first summary for example. Also frontline turns at least in second rebuttal, that'd be pretty cool.

4.) Make sure to weigh in round. 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 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.

5.) I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counter-intuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.

6.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said when in reality, I couldn't because I struggled to flow it.

7.) Chill out in round. No need to be overly aggressive and stuff, that doesn't really appeal to me. Especially in crossfire.

8.) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in the debate community (and really any community).

9.) Please don't spread. I hate it. Even in the rounds when I went fast as a competitor, I didn't enjoy debating at all. I'm also a fairly slow typer and I rarely have paper while I'm judging. If you absolutely have to spread, tell everyone before the round and make sure your opponents are ok with it, and send speech docs. Still, if you're going way too fast, I'll clear you.

10.) Please avoid progressive argumentation in front of me. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to evaluate these, but I also don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene (drop them) as necessary. I am unlikely to vote for theory, but if your opponents are being abusive, address it as a warranted voter, I prefer not to evaluate shells. I will not vote for Ks. If you run tricks in front of me, I will drop you immediately on the lowest possible speaks. If you rely on progressive argumentation because you're not good enough at substance, that's your decision, just make sure to strike me or else we'll both be very unhappy.

11.) If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.

12.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low. PLEASE feel free to call this behavior out. Furthermore, I don't like 3FFs and postrounding, I'll answer questions, but after a certain point it's just exhausting for everyone involved.

13.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses.

I don't think anything here deviates too much from what could be expected as a "first year out" judge but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Don't forget to have fun in round!!

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

above all, be nice

Frank Ocean lyrics guarantee 30s for both members of the team

message me for questions

Varnica Basavaraj Hire

Bryan Benitez Hire

Martand Bhagavatula Hire

Shabbir Bohri Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:19 PM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Alec john Boulton Hire

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 12:32 PM PDT

alec.j.boulton.molero@vanderbilt.edu

My name is Alec, you can call me that and not "judge" <3

-General-

Tech > truth, "tabula rasa" whatever.

Make these rounds interesting. Debate is a game, have fun with it!

Postround.

Cool with anyone speaking in cross.

Ignore my facial expressions.

If you think something is missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging. You can also ask me paradigm questions in-round, but I won't give answers that will advantage one team.

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez who says M4A grows the economy" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Be quick with evidence or read off cards/send card docs, I'll hard dock speaks.

-Traditional-

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline defense, just offense (including implications and weighing).

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. Clear up mess, I'm not voting on unarticulated implications. Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.

-Progressive-

I increasingly feel the need to specify that I have a bar for warranting in progressive debate: understand what you're saying. Don't assume I'll vote on your shortcuts. Nothing to be scared of, if you think you'd normally be fine you shouldn't need to change your debating. Anything is fine, just be clear with offs and actually make warrants.Think through what you're doing and try to explain your position to me as though the goal was to fully get me to understand your argument.

If the other team didn't explicitly agree to have a prog debate and they make any abuse claim, I'll drop you. The exception is in-round violations that require theory, but in that case at least be clear pre-speech about what you want to do.

Speech by speech responses are fine, extensions start in summary.

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly bias and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read. I'll judge those debates.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of why you are debating. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Trust yourself. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

-Speaks-

If you care about this (which you should!!!), here are some things you can do to up your speaks:

- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)

- be nice (or really just don't benot nice)

- don't steal prep time, it's always obvious

- have your evidence ready

- play fair

- literally just don't give me a reason to drop your speaks. I'm not trying to give out 30s, but I like giving higher-end speaks when I see genuine debating and real attempts to engage with this activity :)

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Neha Boyapati Hire

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 2:00 PM MST

Southlake Carroll '22, UTD '26

nehapaulina04@gmail.com (put me on the chain please! and reach out to me if you have any questions/concerns/literally anything)

Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 5 years, 3 in PF and 2 in worlds. In worlds, I did the ¼ and 3 and I won TFA state in 2021. In PF, I qualified for TFA state in my freshman and sophomore years and I broke at a few bid tournaments. I’ve been judging a mix of PF and WSD ever since I graduated. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Sanjay Shori, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala.

TLDR; tech > truth, down for anything that isn't offensive/exclusionary

My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and preferences can be overridden by good debating. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, the ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.

I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one.

Things that matter for both PF and Worlds: I couldn’t care less about what you wear or whether you sit or stand, please do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable. I would classify myself as tech > truth, but my threshold for tech decreases the more you forgo truth. In simpler terms, run whatever argument you want, but the more ridiculous it is, the more I’m willing to buy responses to that argument. Speaks: I think speaker points are a really dumb system so I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers but speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(. if you make a joke about/somehow make fun of anbu subramanian: for pfers, auto 30. for wsders, +1 speaker point

-PF-

It’s been a while since I’ve been involved in PF, so you’d probably best classify me as a flay judge. While I’m not up-to-date on the topic, I catch on to arguments pretty quickly. I can keep up with some speed but if you’re planning on going >200wpm, please send a doc!!

Substance: Love a good substance debate. No new frontlines to any responses from first rebuttal and no new defense in second summary. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Disads/offensive overviews are fine in first rebuttal but not second. No sticky defense. No new arguments (including weighing) in final focus.

Cross: I can’t even put into words how much I don’t care about cross. I’m not voting off anything in cross so if anything important was said, it needs to be in a speech. Please feel free to use cross for prep if you want (#abolishgrandcross), however if you choose to do it, whatever you say is binding.

Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF, but tbh I'm probably not a good judge for it. You can make “bUt tHiS iS pF" as a response but I won’t like it. If you're reading multiple off-case arguments please make it clear when you're going from one to the next.

Theory: I’m most familiar with basic theory shells such as disclosure, paraphrase, etc, but you would make my life 10x easier if you ran them in shell format. I default drop the debater (except on T where I default drop the argument), competing interps, and no RVIs, but if you can’t read and warrant paradigm issues you’re getting 20s. If you're planning on running a more complex shell then please slow down and overexplain it. Please clearly delineate between the different parts of the shell. I'm not up-to-date enough on current pf norms to have many set beliefs, but I do believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is usually bad. This is not to say you can't win against these shells with me as a judge, but it might be an uphill battle.

Kritiks: A lot of Ks in PF are bad. Your alt needs to solve. I have a very basic understanding of basic Ks so you should definitely really overexplain (especially high theory and non-T/performance Ks) and send me a doc. If you read a floating PIK in PF i’m dropping your speaks. ROTB is fine as long as you run it properly. Perfcons on both theory and Ks are very persuasive. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW like saying it’s violent will annoy me.

Everything else: run them at your own risk just please overexplain

Evidence and Prep: I expect all evidence to be sent cut w/ tags. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to send evidence after your opponent calls for it, I'll start docking your speaks. I will read all evidence sent on the chain, and will ask to see any other cards only if I am explicitly told to do so. please extend ev by author name/year AND what the card said! I try my best to write down all author names but if you're going too fast I won't be able to catch everything (hint: you can avoid this issue by sending a doc!). I don't like evidence debates but I understand they happen a lot in PF - indicts are fine but I would much rather hear defense. Flex prep is fine. I won't time your prep but I will not be lenient on any instances of obvious prep stealing.

-WSD-

Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.

Content: Like I mentioned earlier, I’m tech > truth, so feel free to run whatever argument you want as long as it’s well-warranted. This is a hot worlds take but I strongly believe and will die on the hill that principle arguments are outweighed by the practical 100% of the time. That being said I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument) and I'll evaluate them just like any other argument, but if you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal.

Strategy: This is the aspect of the debate I pay the most attention to since at the end of the day, I am a flow judge and whoever wins on the flow wins the round. I absolutely love seeing weighing, I think it’s a really important aspect of debate that a lot of WSDers ignore. If you win the weighing, and you win your link into the weighing, you win the round. Please be comparative to your opponent’s specific arguments instead of just repeating yours over and over. Worlds arguments are stock and repetitive 90% of the time, so I absolutely love seeing unique strats. I also love it when teams make a clear worlds comparison analysis. Please, for the love of god, resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over.

Style: Putting on a good performance may get you higher speaks, but it won’t win you the round. That being said, I do appreciate humor and seeing your personality in the speech, as long as you don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. The main way I award style points is by how organized and easy to flow your speeches are. I genuinely don’t understand why this activity is so bad at signposting, please tell me where you are on the flow or else I won’t know what to do with your argument.

Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means)

Madison Cahill Hire

Kendall Carll Hire None

Wallace Chen Hire

Last changed on Fri November 19, 2021 at 11:38 AM EDT

Clements '20

email: wallacethechen@gmail.com

hey! i debated PF for 4 years, competing on the texas circuit and somewhat on the national circuit my senior year. i qualified for tfa state, nsda nats, the toc, blah blah.

i'd say that i'm a typical flow judge. debate in the style that you're most comfortable with, and i'll probably be able to adapt to you :)

i'll try to make my paradigm as understandable as possible to debaters of all levels. that being said, if you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts! if you're in a hurry, just read through the bolded.

- i am a tabula rasa judge. i will walk into the round with a clean slate of mind and learn as the round progresses.

- i vote based on a tech > truth philosophy. i view debate as a game, and i expect the debaters to play the game by its rules. whatever arguments are presented to me are assumed to be true until proven otherwise. however, the more absurd an argument is to me, the less subconsciously inclined i am to give credence to it.

- i will intervene as minimally as possible. a response made to an argument, even if it is unresponsive, will always flow through for me if it is implicated. however, my threshold for responses will be low; telling me it's unresponsive is enough for me to not evaluate it. i will also inevitably intervene a tiny bit if i need to make a decision when there isn't a clear path to the ballot for me on either side (it's your job to prevent this from happening, anyway).

- speed is fine, but only if the enunciations are clear. please keep in mind that i am no machine. the quicker you speak, the more you risk me misflowing something or missing it entirely. i would prefer a more comprehensive and moderate speed debate, and your speaker points will reflect this!

- i will not evaluate progressive arguments such as theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. i was more of a traditional substance debater and never properly learned the inner workings of these types of arguments, so please don't read them. as Jacqueline Wei puts it, "Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible." if there is any true abuse in the round, warrant out in a speech why they are abusive and why i should drop them. i'll be receptive to it, because i think you can check back abuse without reading shells and making the round exclusive.

- i do not think defense is sticky, but this only applies to arguments that your opponents go for. if they don't extend something, consider it dropped. now that summaries are three minutes instead of two, i think it's advantageous for you to just extend defense on their argument(s) regardless of whether or not it's conceded.

- anything you want frontlined in the round has to be in the speech right after. this includes all offense and defense that is read against your case, or else it's considered conceded to me. your frontlines don't have to be that thorough in second rebuttal, but they should most definitely be fleshed out in second summary.

- i have a high threshold for extensions. i expect warrants to be in anything that you extend, and turns should have impacts that are properly weighed if you want me to be able to vote on them. also, i think it's strategic for debaters to narrow down to one or two arguments by the end of the round. go for more if you think it's necessary, but collapsing is definitely the move. telling me that an argument has no warrant/implication/impact flows through and is an acceptable response to me. if you win your argument but extend it poorly, don't expect the best speaks.

- i hate rhetoric impacts. telling me that "poverty happens" or "war will occur" is not really contextualized enough for me to happily vote for; i will buy any clarity of impact weighing if this is the case. i would prefer numbers or statistics when it comes to impact extensions, but, of course, if you win the weighing and explain why your impact comes first, i'd still vote off of it even if it's fundamentally rhetoric.

- summary and final focus should have alignment. whatever you want me to vote for in final focus should be in the summary speech (yes, warrants and everything). it does not matter if your opponents do not address it; you still have to properly extend it. i won't vote for anything new in final focus. and yes, i can tell if you're lying. don't read new evidence in second summary either. if you do anything cheap, your speaker points will probably be hurt.

- offensive overviews in second rebuttal make me unhappy. these can probably be turned into disads or turns against your opponent's case. if you read like two or three new contentions in rebuttal and mask it as an overview, i think that's incredibly abusive. if the other team tells me this is abusive, i'll agree and cross it off my flow.

- please signpost. tell me where you are on the flow as you go, otherwise it will be very hard for me to follow you. roadmaps before your speeches are appreciated too!

- weighing helps me very much when evaluating rounds. i hold weighing in a layer above substance, but you'd still need an impact to access that layer. it isn't necessary, but it does make it easier for me to sign my ballot for you. however, please don't just throw buzzwords at me and say you outweigh on six different mechanisms. i think weighing should be properly warranted and explained as should any other argument.

- i default to utilitarianism absent a framework/weighing. i'll intervene with common sense, looking at the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

- i will call for evidence only when necessary. if debaters explicitly tell me to look at a piece of evidence, i will call for it after the round is over. if i think the legitimacy of your evidence is crucial for my decision, i will also call for it. that being said, i will base any implications made on that piece of evidence on what i read. so, if you heavily exaggerated what your article says, then that card's implications will hold less weight when i'm making my decision. if the card is completely miscut, i'm automatically dropping you and tanking your speaks. while it is somewhat interventionist if the opposing team didn't make the analysis that your evidence is misconstrued, i don't think that teams have the ability nor the obligation to check back every single piece of evidence that you read. i hold evidence ethics in a completely different sphere; if you miscut evidence, you are a cheater in the game of debate.

- i presume the team that lost the coin flip when i do not see any offense coming from either team by the end of the round. my friend Yukiho once explained this to me, and i thought it made a lot of sense. the team that loses the coin toss begins the round with a structural disadvantage and are thus rewarded with the default win in this scenario. i used to presume first speaking team, but i feel like most teams that lose the toss end up speaking first anyway. if the team that won chooses a side, then they are receiving an advantage by securing their preferred side. feel free to warrant out another way i should presume, though.

- i don't flow crossfires. however, i think crossfires are such an underrated aspect of debate rounds. cross was my favorite speech as a debater, and i will appreciate an interesting discussion. crossfire is also binding, which means that anything you say must be upheld for the rest of the round. feel free to be funny or cuss, as long as you aren't being rude or derogatory in any way. seriously. cross shouldn't be a shouting contest.

- speaker points reflect your speaking style and strategy. to get good speaks from me, i expect strategic decisions that make the round very clean and organized. i was a very narrative-heavy debater, so if you guys paint a very clear picture for me, you will be rewarded! (also +0.5 speaks if you bring me food)

- flex prep and open crossfires are fine. as long as both teams agree to it, feel free to have everyone speak during cross or take prep time to ask each other questions.

- please read content/trigger warnings if you plan on making arguments pertaining to sensitive issues. debate should be a safe space for everyone! at the very least, people deserve to be prepared for the discussion before the debate begins. if you're going to be reading arguments like that, please be prepared to drop it or replace it with something else in the case that your opponents are uncomfortable with it.

- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. if you are offensive or derogatory in any way, i will down you and nuke your speaks. even if you are the best debater in the world, some things are more important than a high school activity.

- postround me if you want. i don't think you should do this to a judge unless they explicitly say it's fine in their paradigm; it's important to understand that no judge wants to make the wrong decision. but, for me, it's fine if you disagree with some aspects of my decision. i'll discuss it out with you as long as i'm not in a hurry.

most importantly, be sure to have fun! if both teams agree to it, i am totally down to judge the round with different conditions. you want me to be a lay judge? i got you. i also don't care what you wear as long as you're comfortable! just don't shake my hand please.

if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts

Maria Cheng Hire

Gaang Choi Hire

Last changed on Sun September 19, 2021 at 3:52 PM EDT

I currently debate for Hunter- this is my 4th year doing PF.

gaang0408@gmail.com - put me on the email chain

update for ld: you can read anything but im not familiar with most kritiks other than the most generic ones. please extend warrants not just tags and be clear

TLDR: I will vote off anything. Anything not on the flow is not on my ballot. Please warrant, extend, and weigh all of the argument(s) you go for.

I'm tech>truth and I don't intervene. No -ist/problematic arguments either.

I probably can't keep up with spreading unless you're really clear, so if you're going to go >250 wpm it's probably a good idea to send me a speech doc.

I like risky strategic decisions, smart analytics, and creative/principled arguments– do any of these and I will boost your speaks

I'm not that familiar with kritiks/high theory – If they are explained well enough for me though I have zero problems voting on them. I'd like to think I have some experience with theory but extensions have to be clear if I'm going to vote on it. I default to competing interps over reasonability. Please don't run progressive arguments against those who don't know how to respond to it.

I will not call for evidence unless it is the deciding factor in an argument that may win/lose the round– but if that is the case you're probably doing something wrong. PF evidence ethics are trash anyway so it doesn't really matter to me if one team doesn't have a qualification/quantification. Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence

Fully and clearly extend any arguments you are going for in every speech (with their warrants!!) or else I will not vote off said arguments. Don't extend through ink. I will always resolve clash and vote for an argument that is "muddled" over an unexplained, blippy argument that has been sneakily extended because it clearly didn't matter/wasn't clear enough for me/the other team to dedicate time towards.

Weigh DAs in rebuttal. 2nd rebuttal should frontline all arguments that the 2nd speaking team plans to go for.

New arguments are not allowed in either final focus, unless they are weighing. This includes frontlines.

All weighing is good. Please start weighing ASAP. However, just saying "We outweigh on scope, because we impact more people," is not weighing. You need to fully explain this and flesh it out. Bonus points if you can preempt their counter weighing and/or if you meta-weigh. However, if you read nonsensical weighing, like weighing on "strength of link" or "directionality of link," a) it's not going on the flow and b) you will lose speaker points. Those are not weighing, they probably just mean you have defense on the opponent's case and/or you should be doing well-warranted link weighing. New weighing is permitted in any speech (not delinks disguised as weighing), but I will only evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF if there isn't any so far on that argument.

Also, weighing on "lack of quantification" or "probability" is not real weighing. If you win the warrants and the reasoning behind an argument, you win 100% probability into that argument's impact. "Lack of quantification" is not a reason to prefer your impact, you have to explain why your impact has a higher scope/magnitude/whatever the heck you need a quantification for. In addition— the affirmative saying that the negative has lower probability because their impacts have yet to occur is NOT a weighing mechanism, it is a definitional consequence of debating as the negative because the only world in which the negative's impacts trigger is an affirmative world which hasn't happened yet.

If there is no weighing, I default to strength of link.

I presume neg unless convinced otherwise

Speaker points are not based on your presentation, they're based on what you add to my flow. If you are excessively rude, I will dock tho. I start speaks at a 27.5.

If both teams agree to skip cross and prep or do other random things instead, I'm ok with that.

Jungyun (Emily) Choi Hire

James Cullers Hire

Jasper Datta Massachusetts Independent

Lars Deutz Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:21 PM CDT

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal

PF Summary/Final Focus

Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
Extend and weigh any argument you go for
Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded

Theory

Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense

Other non-standard arguments in PF

I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate

Post-Round Info

I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

Mina Freeburg Hire

Last changed on Sat October 3, 2020 at 6:18 PM CEST

Hello, I'm MJ!

(they/them/theirs)

I think that the majority of paradigms out there are not a true reflection on how judges are going to vote for you. A paradigm tells you a lot about how judges want to fit in, their anxieties and how they want to be perceived in the debate community. Saying that you don’t have biases is false, especially when we take into account our subconscious. Being transparent with you is more important to me because I know how frustrating it is to have a lying judge. Meaning, the purpose of my paradigm is to be transparent and acknowledge how imma truly view this debate round.

I think it’s really fucking performative for non-Black debaters to run Black centered arguments when you have not taken action towards dismantling anti-Blackness. This topic is very complex and personal to some of us, take that into account when making arguments. Signal me 612-655-6531 if you are interested in getting involved.

I am dedicating my senior year to combat the structural inequalities within the debate space. If you would like to get involved please email me!

Yes, add me to the email chain: freeburgdebate@gmail.com

Please feel free to email me with questions, concerns or if you need anything else! :)

PSA: Your mental health and well-being will always be more important than a debate round. If you are feeling overwhelmed, please let me know before the round and we will take it from there. If you are feeling anxious during the round to an extreme extent, please let me know. If you are unable to verbalize that, knock 3 times on the desk. However, please keep in mind the integrity in finishing the debate round as well.

Before the round starts, help me out by telling me your name, pronouns and speaker position!

Do not be a dick: not to me, your partner, in CX. I will stop the round if you are patronizing and call your bs out [If you are a cishet white male, please read that again]

I have zero tolerance to arguments like homophobia good/racism good etc and will not hesitate to give you zero speaks and default the win to the other team
Tag team CX is fine just don’t speak over your partner

You’ll start at 29+ Speaks, extra if you bring me snacks or send memes in your speech docs :)

Speed is fine just make sure you are comprehensible

Disclosure: Super important and good for small and large schools alike. Clash makes the debate better.

Read This For Prefs

Top Level: Please debate in the style that is the best for you. However, this past season I solely ran kritikal arguments and prefer kritikal debate rounds. I will still listen to a ‘traditional’ policy round, I just think that it produces a bad form of knowledge production and I’m persuaded by those arguments.

When judging, I believe Tech > Truth so…

My opinion will not be a factor in my decision calculus whatsoever unless you are making blatantly harmful arguments ie: oppression good, etc

Truth is technical when expressed properly--there is nothing wrong with establishing good ethos and pathos by weaving grand narratives within isolated framing questions of the debate.

Small arguments that you can easily forget might just be the winning arguments when impacted out properly in opposition to the team’s large/structural claims. Most of the best arguments do not have cards. Trust yourself and that big brain of yours.

Win the flow by evaluating competing claims in a meaningful way. Line by line > contextual overviews > your 5-minute pre-written overview Further, the flow allows me to sustain the best understanding of how the round went. I want as little judge intervention as possible so don’t rely on me reading the evidence alongside you without telling me to do so. I am guided by the round itself and will do what y’all tell me to do and only if you tell me.

You should also definitely flash your analytics to your opponents, ESPECIALLY if you spread through them. Accessible clash debate is good!

In the final speeches, do some nice impact calculus, collapse down on your winning arguments, and write my ballot out for me. Contextualize the round and tell me why I need to vote for you.

Other predispositions:

_____

The meaning and purpose of debate holds a special place in my heart as I founded my school’s first team in decades. As someone who is still in high school, joining debate has been one of the best decisions of my HS career. This is not necessarily from the debate rounds themselves but because of what I have learned about myself through debate’s molding. The benefits of debate don’t come just from reading at the speed of light and screaming about whether or not a nuke war will happen if we stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, but from your overall experiences. Further, The value of debate does not come from how many bids you have, your team’s heg, your zip code, what camp you went to etc. I think the value of debate comes not just from its incredible ability to shape a person’s perceptions of the world around them, but also to teach someone about themselves and allow for growth and learning. Debate is so much more than what happens in the debate round, it’s all of the work that go into that affirmative, K file, and a debater’s overall competitive performance. However, debate is also all of the things that go on outside of the round. Debate is privilege. It’s all of the attendant things that surround the debate space: ethnic & racial & sexual identity, socioeconomic status, coaching, stress of school, family life, personal relationships, partnerships, the school you go to and the list goes on and on and on. As debaters, we throw around big stick impacts and utilitarian modes of thinking without questioning it whatsoever. Whether or not you think debate is a game, I think we can all agree that it is an unfair ‘game’--one that does not come with a set of rules or guidelines to make things equal for everyone enabling a headstart for somet. The establishment of your team, it’s funding, coaches, members, location, etc--matters, a lot. I bring this to your attention because debate is an awesome activity that all people deserve to be apart of, but lacks all forms of accessibility. This awareness is because I empathize with you as a debater. I want to refashion the way the debate space functions and allow for an equal playing field.

And, as a debater, this is why I lean towards kritikal arguments. I believe that the impacts that come out of K debate allow for better examination of the world around us and create a better form of knowledge production rather than pretending the importance of debate comes from something that will never actually happen. The benefits of debate have always reaped off of wealth, race, heteronormative gender elitism. It’s the reason why we always see the same teams at the top and why the rest of us have to work that much harder to get to the same place. I want you to ask yourself who the winners and losers actually are when debating a traditional policy round--whether or not a hypothetical plan “passing” actually equals success. Unless we begin to question larger structural implications of the debate space, debate will never really change.

I will still listen to your bs ptx DA so chillax

______

Position by Position Breakdown

K affs: Love them! I think that they should be related to the topic/debate space that is more than just one sentence or tag of a card. But I will listen to affs that aren’t. If you run a dope ass performance aff u da best <333

FW: Always being on the affirmative side of a FW debate I definitely lean aff, but it’s all in the flow. However, for me, this is an argument about the models of debate. Instead of hella “abuse” you should debate the competing interpretations and what that would look like in practice.

On that note, I think the best impact to go for on the FW flow is education. Fairness in debate is not attainable. If you go heavy on fairness make sure you talk about how it’s an internal link to education and I will buy it more. I think that “thinking like a policymaker” arguments are harmful and will be more inclined to vote for the aff if they contest that.

Don’t take advantage of arguments that you have not experienced ie: if you’re from a big debate school I don’t want to hear you say the word “small school.”

If your FW is why resolutional debate is better than K debate for education, you have to really go hard on this one because I do not believe this for a second. If you are winning the flow I will still vote you up, I just won’t like it.

SSD is good

FW v. K on the neg: Don’t appreciate these arguments. Force yourself to contest the method of the K instead of not engaging. Do your research. I’m getting really sick of policy teams not listening to what K teams are saying and bulldozing them with their non-contextualized FW blocks. The neg should have ground about being able to run Ks on the neg. Arguments along the lines of how the neg deserves to be heard are persuasive. I really dislike aff arguments that are like “neg must fiat a plan” and will be heavily persuaded by abuse arguments from the neg.

Ks:

I consider myself to have a decent amount of knowledge on K literature, but that does not mean that you don’t need to explain your K in depth. if you do not know what your K is I’m not going to be happy voting for you.

I like more material alternatives as opposed to more conceptual/theoretical. I want an explanation of the alternative that goes beyond what the tag says: what does voting for you does in the world of the alt? How does it absolve the impacts and links? Appreciate depth in the alt debate which will also help you on the perm.

Don’t let the aff get away with the perm

Don’t rely on jargon and you need to be able to explain your literature without it

Pls K proper or tell me how ur going to be organizing the K in your speeches by signposting

V. Policy Aff :

I think that the link level is extremely important and needs in-depth explanations of why that link is a bad thing (whether it is intrinsically bad or if it proves that the affirmative is less desirable than the status quo). I’m more inclined to case-specific links, but state bad links are fine if they are warranted out.

Depending on your strat, Ks don’t necessarily need an alternative but make sure you weigh if kicking it is worth it

V. K aff

I am heavily persuaded by arguments that go beyond the hypothetical nature of debate. Tell me why your K produces a better form of knowledge production which has better educational impacts which makes us better people in the real world. Arguments like this might be implied, but they definitely hold a lot of value.

Prove why your alternative is better than their advocacy ig lol

At the end of most K v. K debates it comes down to why your method solves better

Weighing the Ontology/Epistemology is <3

Case:

At heart, I think that your policy plan does absolutely nothing. I will vote on presumption very easily. But If the neg has little to no offense I will probably default aff

I think the art of case debate is definitely being lost (I am apart of that problem lmaoo). I enjoy the negative attacking the case more than a bs DA but yes to a combo of both. If the neg is winning a solvency deficit, I'll have a much harder time voting aff vs an off-case position.

CPs

I love PIC/Ks out of methods the most and I think they can be strategic. Word PICs are fine.

I will judge kick something if you tell me to in the debate, but otherwise, I don’t default

I will vote for your CP if it has a net benefit. If it doesn't solve the aff entirely, explain why the net benefit is more important and why the perm doesn't function.

I’m indifferent to CP theory

DAs

As a predominant K debater, I find DAs more appealing when there is a well explained and contextual link argument. Generic topic links as the main link story in the 2nr is not the move, unless ur winning that lol.

I really love critical DAs

If you’re reading a K, make sure to put some independent DAs on the flow as well

I’m a sucker for impact framing and love in-depth and contextualized impact calc

Turns case args are good but make sure you explain them otherwise they are a waste of time

Theory

Slow down or send out your long theory blocks

I am pretty neutral with condo and can be convinced it’s bad if there is abuse happening in the round. You should definitely have a limit in your interp with the number of conditional advocacies.

Feel free to read some stupid shit in front of me, idc

It’s whatever. This topics T arguments are good

5 mins on T in the 2nr please, but if not thats chill

Gus Gerlach Hire

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 3:42 PM CDT

He/Him/His

gerlachgus11@gmail.com

Debated PF at Lakeville South for 5 years. Now a junior at Washington University in St. Louis.

General:

Warranting/weighing determines the result of most rounds.

I flow fast. I won't flow off a doc and will clear you if I can't understand.

Flex prep, open cross, etc. is ok with me if it’s ok with both teams.

Evidence:

I feel completely comfortable dropping teams for bad evidence ethics – even if it’s not a voting issue in round.

Email chains > google docs/any other method of sending evidence. Please don't make me dig through a google doc.

Produce cut cards quickly upon request.

Rounds with lots of time between speeches due to long evidence exchanges are annoying. Sending full speech docs remedies this and makes it easier to check back on bad evidence. To that end, rounds where full speech docs are sent by both teams will be rewarded with substantially higher speaker points.

PF paradigm:

I’m a tech judge.

I will vote for the team with the best link into the best-weighed impact.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Any argument not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped.

Defense isn’t sticky. If you want to talk about it in final focus, it should be in summary.

Collapse to one uniqueness argument, one link, and one impact. There are exceptions to this rule but generally going for fewer arguments while warranting them out more is a better strategy.

Similarly, choose 1-2 best arguments on their side to collapse on. Warrant the argument, respond to frontlines, and explain why it means you win the argument.

Comparative weighing is super important. If you win the weighing and have a risk of offense, I’ll almost certainly vote for you. Meta-weighing is necessary if you and your opponent are using two different weighing mechanisms.

Progressive Arguments:

I'm comfortable in my ability to effectively adjudicate progressive debate in PF.

A few considerations:

1) Theory should be used to check abuse. The bar to respond to frivolous theory is low. I generally support disclosure and the reading of cut cards (these are the shells I have experience reading), although this doesn't mean I'm a hack for disclosure/para shells. I would rather not watch you read theory against a local circuit team or a team you are clearly technically superior to.

2) I don't think public forum is the ideal format for Kritiks because speech times are too short. I'll still do my best to evaluate them.

3) Maddie Cook has a more comprehensive section on progressive arguments. I agree with her.

Sam Goldstone Hire

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 7:50 AM EDT

No Debate.

Firstly, If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it (this includes not flowing/being a lay judge lol I am g-d tier mom judge and won't intervene)

Here is how you should read my paradigm: at the top of each section is the most important stuff. If you only have a few mins read that. reading below those parts will provide a more in-depth take into my judging philosophy.

Update for Online Tourneys

I rlly can't follow like REAL spreading but I can take 99% of PF speed. I'll clear u if i need it. also ask questions if u have them and I'll answer as honestly as possible!

Most important part of my paradigm:

If you make or buy me a chicken parm or mac and cheese, I will get you prep on a topic or coach you for a round or something. I rlly like chicken parm and mac and cheese....

My name is Sam and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA. Was a meh first speaker and got carried imo. Now I'm a member of the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta.

TLDR: Normal circuit tech judge who likes warrants and logic and needs you to collapse on args

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before round or my RFD after round. (thx @Kate Selig for this idea: I'd rather you postround me than tell everyone I'm a bad judge )

Also, ask questions before the round starts! I might have thoughts on the topic you'll wanna hear. tbh also might not cuz I'm kinda dumb

Speed:

u can go fast, but don't like SPREAD SPREAD plz plz. i will try to keep up and clear u if need be.

I can flow it but only if you articulate well enough. 300 wpm and up I need a speech doc. The faster you go the more work I have to do and I'm lazy. I will always flow ur speed, but chances are if you feel the need to go too fast, then your time allocation was bad/you made bad strategic decisions. Also like fr just cuz u can go fast doesn't mean u should. Speed kills

Theory/Progressive args:

read whatever you want. i ran a cap k during medicare for all and loved it lol. I'd rather you not read random theory args just bc you want to win. if you're doing that, ASK YOUR OPPONENTS/DISCLOSE BEFORE ROUND. its rlly sh1tty if you don't. i can't emphasize it enough, reading theory on novices or people that don't understand what's going on = :(

don't run theory if u wanna get high speaks (or win bc i VERY much prefer substance)tbh --> i judged a team who read disclosure against an international team that clearly didn't understand how to debate it and it angered me to my soul. that's just really not cool. don't be mean. :(

but like if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it just like not happily

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

d-d-d-d-disclosure theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very (like actually completely 50-50) tab ras about disclosure, i do not think it is good or bad, just that it exists.

p-p-p-p-paraphrase theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very slightly biased (55-45) for paraphrasing good but its not hard to win paraphrasing bad.

all other theory/k stuff: if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

Cross:

it doesn't matter

Its useless to me. If you want to use an answer your opponent gives in cross, then say it in a speech. Don't be rude. Hug your opponent for a 30.

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to stand up and yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and your partner each get 30's. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get 26's for interrupting cross.

Framework:

I default util.

Explain it well and how I'm supposed to evaluate offense under it. the more complex, the more explaining u need. Framework debates aren't my absolute favorite but hey, you do you!!

Evidence disputes:

read ev if u want. don't miscut but i won't drop u for it.

I value all evidence equally unless you weigh it, which you should. You should ALWAYS tell me why I need to value your evidence more. also, evidence doesn't matter nearly as much as logical warranting. also like in general i won't call for cards unless ur like "sam call for this card" in speech. I think that calling for ev in any other circumstance is intervening.

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

You will get better speaks if: You make jokes. You give good speeches and make good strategic decisions. You aren't a dick. You make me laugh. I am extremely generous and tend to give out 29's routinely. I will give you a 30 if you are exceptional. *Send me a speech doc for an extra .3 speaks (sgoldstone514@gmail.com). Also extra .3 speaks for collapsing (if u do it correctly and it makes me happy) in 2nd rebutal. I guess I'm receptive to 30s theory but like it shouldn't be hard to get a 29.5 from me. I good example of really good strategy is what Jason Luo did in first final focus of TOC finals. also i will give speaks relative to the round and the level of competitors in the debate.

Here is an itemized list of my favorite speakers in no particular order:

- Rahul Shah (his voice is soothing and he's so damn cute)

- Claudia Leduc (gives summary without looking at the flow at all, hella impressive)

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

collapse in 2nd rebuttal. at least frontline offense and stuff. anything not frontlined is conceded.

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

I like roadmaps. I don't need defense in first summary. Don't extend too much in Summary, thats my biggest pet peeve FOR JESUS' (or any g-d u may or may not believe in, but if u wanna win the round do this lol) SAKE: COLLAPSE. When extending the argument you're going for, please extend the uniqueness, link, and impact in both speeches. An incomplete/ghost extension would a) make me sad and b) possibly lose you the round.

Please impact out turns in summary (although its better if this is done in rebuttal) if you plan on going for them. It is 100% okay to just go for a dropped turn. Also, u can go either line by line or give voters/do what you usually do. Don't extend through ink lol. Defense isn't rlly sticky it (unless u make an arg that it is in speech) but I'm less inclined to vote for a team that doesn't frontline at all even if their opponents don't extend defense.

Weighing:

Please weigh, and give me good analysis. It makes my job 1000x easier.

Earlier you weigh, the better. Weighing is very helpful in rebuttal, but NEEDED for me to vote in Summary and FF. With the new 3 min summaries, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to weigh in summary. No new weighing in 2nd FF, new weighing in 1st FF is unfavorable but if it's the only weighing in the round and they don't respond to it then like eh. If both teams win their weighing and cases and there is no meta weighing then I will vote for the team whose weighing was introduced earlier in the round (prereq/link ins weighing doesn't apply here bc if one case is a prereq to another then u vote for the prereq/link in). Does this favor the 1st speaking team? No, you can weigh (and do other fun things) in 2nd constructive. Unrelated but remember to weigh turns over contentions. If nobody weighs then i honestly won't know what to do. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args. jUsT mAk3 mY lyfE eAs1eR!!!

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

I vote on the weighed args first but if nobody weighs then i be big sad, but I'll vote on cleanest/clearest path to the ballot. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args and the paths are both clear/clean. If there is no offense in the round then I flip a coin to decide who picks up cuz choosing any other way is interventionist, but feel free to make warranted arguments abt defaulting to one side or speaking order. I will always disclose after the round and give an RFD. also PS lmfao u need to win the link into the impact that u weighed.

Other:

I will reward you for taking risks like collapsing on only a turn. Please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. I hate dumb analogies, chances are, even if you think you're funny, you're not. Don’t call me judge, that’s weird. If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

for every link into tourism you read, +.5 speaks lol.

i will never ever ever make any comments abt what you're wearing or how you speak. if a judge ever does, that's pretty messedup. i don't care if u show up in designer clothes or sweats. i enjoyed debating in sweats, it's comfy.

in outs, if i'm on a panel that's 2 other lays, u can tell me to judge it like a lay round and i will. (this means voting for the team that better establishes a narrative and is more convincing lol)

Do crazy sh1t fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

tbh unpopular opinion but evidence is dumb, debate should be logical. obvi like use evidence if u want but warrants/analytics are perfecto. I genuinely think that debate would be better if it was just logical warranting, evidence is bad. (obviously evidence matters but: warrant + authors name vs. just warrant? meh p equal unless u give me good reasoning to prefer the evidence. unless the evidence is like a fact like "x has increased y 200%" is obviously better than a reason why x doesn't increase y)

If at any point you believe that you have won the round with no way for the opponents to win, you can call a TKO, if you are correct it will be an auto W with 30s, but if you are incorrect it is a loss with 25s.

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 lol.

Above all, just have fun! Debate can get stressful so just try to breathe, chill and relax in round.

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

plz remind me of how many speaks you should win based all the crazy stuff in here lol i'll forget what i put here

Cecilia Granda-Scott Hire

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:11 AM EDT

Hello! I’m a second-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about APDA!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid
Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.
If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.
I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round
Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.
My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.
If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Hayden Harper Hire

Grant Gunther Hess Hire

Last changed on Tue September 29, 2020 at 8:26 AM CDT

I debated at Westlake. I did the nat circuit and stuff. Got some bids. Did virtual TOC. It sucked. I'm reasonably sure I know what i'm doing.

pronouns: he, him

PUBLIC FORUM:

Preferences

1) I’m hyper tech <3

2) speech docs if u suck at spreading (ill be the judge of it)

3) ill vote off of whatever, just weigh and please clash so I don't have to intervene

4) I flow very detailed so don't try and pull something dumb bc ill dock speaks.

5) Don’t pull some east coast sh*t and read new stuff in 2nd FF, if I think your trying to trick me i will not hesitate to down u lol.

6) I don't care about cards, I wont call for them unless I am told to. Evidence debate sucks.

7) Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. I wont evaluate new frontlines in 2nd summary. (people that do this really piss me off.)

8) If you get card dumped upon, group them. I wont feel bad for u if you get dumped and can't group. That's your fault.

9) Defense is STICKY

10) I wouldn't call myself a K hack, but I will def err on the side of K

Specific things: (Competence 1-5)

Framework: 5

I like a good framework debate and I’m okay with voting for any framework you tell me to vote under. Key points come down to which team presents the best model for debate, their justifications, nuances of the weighing mechanism, and probably win an external impact. You should probably be leveraging arguments off of case. Framing is sticky if dropped.

T: 2.5

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.

Theory: 4.5

If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), just flesh it out.

Disclosure good.

Kritiks: 4

I think that PF definitely has room for Kritikal arguments to be read. K args are definitely topic specific in PF. However, please set up these forms of arguments correctly and don't read it just because you think it'll pick up my ballot. I consider myself to be a K debater, so ill know the lit and if ur case is bad :)

Word Pic's: 4.5

I love it, just make sure its legitimate. I definitely think PF needs to become more aware and improving the norms are good.

Tricks: 3

If you decide to run tricks I cant promise i'll get it - pls make sure its straightforward and explained/extended. Tricks are not sticky (lol)

Speed: 5

I'm cool with speed, if you go past 350, send speech docs. Ill yell clear if i cant understand you. DON'T GO FAST IF YOU CANT PRONOUNCE WORDS. Going fast but being bad doesn't make u cool, if u can't do it well - don't do it at all.

Speaks:

I think speaks are broken and suffer from inherent bias. That being said i will give 30's to everyone unless you say something racist, homophobic, or generally anything that can make someone feel unwelcome or unsafe.

TLDR: I don't care what you do. If you read a cool K i'm more likely to vote for it. Don't go past 350 wpm. Don't go past 200 if you suck at pronouncing stuff. cheers, have fun, don't be offensive. ill give 30's.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

ill evaluate anything, go as fast as you want - if u pass 350 send me speech docs.

I like LARP, K'S and theory.

I'm semi-comfy with non-t/performance affs.

I love word piks, or a technicality debate.

cheers, have fun.

Charles Huang Hire

Hannah Wu Huang Hire

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 12:43 PM EDT

Hello friends,

I'm Hannah; I used to do PF for Interlake and am now a 26 at Dartmouth. Please set up an email chain for round documents, my email is hwhuang04@gmail.com .

I have never ever competed in LD. I'll try my best to evaluate everything, but I also haven't debated in a while and am a normal college student at this point... I <3 topical arguments and will probably evaluate them in a way that everyone will be happier about

I evaluate debates as tab as I can, but deep down I do like truthy arguments that make sense. If I dont understand something, I feel cosmically compelled to evaluate other things before it

I liked debating and I like watching people debate. Whether I like judging is another question contingent on some of the things below

Things I like:

Decelerating rounds: faster case and rebuttal, slower summary and final focus (PLEASE COLLAPSE EFFICIENTLY)
Clash: collapsing on a common issue on both sides makes the debate more interesting, easier to evaluate, and easier for me to make a decision that everyone is happy with (this can also be done thru comparative weighing)
Frontlining in the next speech: this should be going on as soon as 2nd rebuttal
Complete extensions: this goes for offense and defense - no sticky defense
Warrants/analysis that go beyond "author said so"
Implicated turns: please weigh turns that aren't direct link turns
Content warnings with opt outs
ROB analysis: I like progressive arguments which tell me WHY i should deviate from more traditional judging and what role the judge should take in the round
Cool, intuitive arguments

Things i dislike:

New in the 2: I WILL NOT evaluate anything not in summary
New implicative weighing in ff: it's basically a new argument
Frivolous theory, please don't waste my time
Bad spreading
Bad evidence
Debaters that don't look at their timers
Racists/sexists/etc

I'll disclose whenever I can. Feel free to ask questions about my decision if the tournament isn't running behind

Sid Inta Hire

Ali Jalal Hire 8 rounds

Ethan Jiang Hire

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 11:29 AM CDT

he/him

TLDR: Have fun. Try hard. Take risks. Ask for accommodations. Safety > Ethics > Everything Else.

Hi, I'm Ethan. I debated for four years at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, TX, mainly in Extemp and Congress.

General Notes:

1) Pronouns, honorifics, and names matter. Default to singular they/them when no pronouns are provided.

2) Recycling prep is bad.

3) I like to give visual cues. Read them

4) The segregation of the debate space along racial, gender, and class lines is real and important. Make every effort to stop it.

5) Cheating is bad.

Extemp:

1) I evaluate Extemp on these three metrics, in order:

a) How accurately and completely did you answer the question?

b) How much did I learn from your speech?

c) How entertained was I by your speech?

2) Structure: I eat up substructure like Choji eats bbq. I also dig a good two-point speech. Framing and definitions in the intro are nice. Signpost.

3) Sourcing: There is no such thing as too many sources. Good sources are specific, reliable, and academic, but not necessarily recent.

a) Books > Government sources > Scientific research > Think tanks > News organizations.

b) Be creative with how you use sources; for instance, use an older source to show the change from past to present, your Economics textbook to explain monetary policy, or Fox News to show the conservative viewpoint on an issue.

c) If evidence doesn't have a date, say "no date."

d) I will flow and check your sources. Don't lie.

4) Timing: Be between 6:50 and 7:10. The grace period shouldn't exist. Also, I suck at remembering to give time signals, sorry in advance. Yes, you can time yourself.

5) Delivery: Smile. Be facially expressive. Vocally, live on the extremes of pace, volume, and tone. Anything in the middle is boring. On-tops are cool, and thematically linked on-tops are even cooler.

5) Purge "considering" and "as explained by" from your vocabulary.

6) CX: Be aggressive. Don't feel pressure to split your time equally between points.

Congress:

1) I evaluate Congress on these three metrics, in order:

a) How clearly did you prove a net benefit or net harm of the legislation?

b) How engaged were you in the chamber and debate?

c) If you were running for Congress, would I vote for you?

2) Early round speeches are the easiest to give and the easiest to evaluate. I love a good sponsor.

3) Please have a real AGD. Stealing rhetoric/AGDs is an auto 9.

4) Make me care. Authentic and powerful rhetoric is a product of a strong warrant and a humanized impact.

5) Take risks! Mix up your speech structure, make references, and be funny.

6) Getting screwed by precedence sucks. Show me you can adapt.

7) If you give me rehash, I will visibly shake my head for the duration of the point.

8) Weigh, especially in crystals.

9) Be between 2:50 and 3:00. The grace period shouldn't exist.

10) Have fun in questioning. Pose scenarios, point out contradictions, and propose counterexamples.

11) Amendments, evidence challenges, turns, and thematic speeches are underutilized.

12) Purge "at their highest ground," "allow me to expand," "affirm," and "negate" from your vocabulary.

13) If possible, please take 10 minute recesses. I am a human who has biological needs.

14) POs: 12 speeches per hour-->top 3. No mistakes. Fairness matters. Be funny but not forced. "I guess we'll never know" is an abomination.

PF:

1) I'm a flay judge who did one year of NPF and watches an unhealthy amount of PF Videos on Youtube.

2) I vote on offense. Present the path of least resistance.

3) Weigh early. If you can tell me what "clarity of impact" or "strength of link" means, I will buy you a car.

4) Extend each part of an argument into FF. Defense is not sticky.

5) Signpost. Roadmaps are helpful.

6) Compare evidence.

7) Number responses.

8) Collapse.

9) Narrative building is important. Tell a story.

10) Don't steal prep.

11) I have a loose understanding of theory and Ks. I am willing to vote off of both. Please do not abuse progressive argumentation to bulldoze unprepared or novice teams.

a) Priors: Open-source disclosure is good, trigger warnings are good, hypocritical theory is bad, paraphrasing is bad, competing interps, no RVIs, drop the debater.

12) I'll disclose if allowed to. Please postround me, but do so respectfully.

LD: Traditional judge. Don't steal prep.

Platform: Structure matters. Be yourself. Open to anything.

Interp: Tell your story honestly. Develop characters. Open to anything.

Dylan Jones Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 17, 2024 at 3:22 PM CDT

[[ ]] I was told my old paradigm was too long, so I've shortened it considerably. I still agree with everything that was there broadly, and you can read the archived version here.

[[ ]] About Me

I debated in HS and won some stuff, graduating in 2021. I also had a brief stint in NDT/CEDA policy and won nothing. I haven't competed since early 2022.
Disinterested in judging vacuous non-arguments and listening to kids be jerks to each other. Be nice. Violence in front of me is an L0 and a talk with your coach. The target of this violence decides what happens with the debate. Yes, this includes misgendering. its probably best to avoid gendering whoever ur debating as a good rule of thumb.
MUCH WORSE FOR E-DEBATE. It's too draining and I zone out a lot. Pref me online at your own risk.
I want to be on the email chain, and I want you to send docs in Word doc format: dylanj724@yahoo.com
Yes speed, if you have to ask though you're likely unclear and I urge you to correct it.
Yes, clash. No to arguments that are specifically designed to avoid engagement

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

tl;dr is that I think every decision is interventionist to some degree, but I try to be as predictable and open about my preferences as possible.
yes, policy; counterplans, disads, etc. are fine. Zero risk is probably a thing. I think it's more interventionist to vote on unwarranted arguments unjustified by the evidence than to read evidence after the debate without being prompted. My BS detector is good and if you're lying about evidence, I'll probably know.
yes kritiks, but I lean more toward policy these days. these next two sentences might seem paradoxical, but I assure you they are not. I am deeply interested in poststructuralist positions and think I will be the best for you if this is your thing. you should defend something material and do something. preference for speeches that contain the alternative and do something material instead of heavy framework dumps with "reject the aff." To clarify, framework and a link is a fine 2nr but the important part is a link. If I don't know what the aff is doing that is actively bad I cannot vote it down even under your framework interp.
yes planless/creatively topical/critical affs, but again I lean more toward policy these days. justify why reading your aff in a space where it must be negated and debated against is good, not just why it's good in a vacuum. talking about the resolution is a must - you should not be recycling backfiles from a different topic and saying nothing about the resolution. Talk about the entire resolution and don't abstract from words or modifiers. if I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. I'm a big sucker for presumption.
yes T-FWK. fine for both fairness and clash, although if you're going for fairness as an internal link, you're probably better set going for clash as an impact itself. Talk about the aff, don't just debate past it. letting the aff win that they resolve xyz impact turn with conceded warrants from case usually means you will lose.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

Phil: sometimes. I understand these arguments theoretically considering it's what I'm studying and I know what people like Kant, Levinas, Spinoza, and Hegel say. I don't understand the debate application of these folks. Be clear and overexplain.
Tricks: strike me.

If you have questions email me, although the archived version of my paradigm at the top will likely answer them. Good luck!

neel kanamangala Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:02 AM CDT

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

Dheeraj Keshav Hire

Last changed on Sat October 10, 2020 at 4:08 PM EDT

Follow my twitch? https://twitch.tv/djdheedhee

Anything I think is out of the flow judge norm/important to read if you're skimming through will be asterisked (***blah blah blah).

Background. I'm a senior at Montgomery Blair HS, and it's my 5th year debating PF. If anything in this paradigm confuses you/there's something missing, shoot me an email (dheekeshav@gmail.com) or hmu on messenger.

Tech > Truth: This is what that means for you.

1. ***I am super committed to not intervening. I WILL NOT DO WORK. This isn't a "don't make me weigh for you" situation, it's a "if you don't explicitly weigh, I'll presume" sort of deal (I'll also presume if both sides win case and weighing and neither does metaweighing). The only exception is if you win defense/link turns on what they're extending, because then the weighing isn't really needed.

a) Presumption - in the context of rounds I judge - is when I can't find a path to the ballot without doing work for you, I vote along some predetermined metric. In this case, I presume whoever lost the coin flip.

2. David puts it best when he says "Run whatever argument you want...HOWEVER, I will intervene in instances where the safety of debaters in the room is compromised. That could be through making blatantly discriminatory arguments or not providing a content warning for a sensitive topic." Anything else is fine - just win your link chain.

Speed: I'm shit at flowing.

1. ***Ok, I'm not that bad, but I would say my inability to handle whatever VIP BL called "PF speed" is one of my biggest flaws as a debater. I can get arguments down, but if you want me to catch nuance or not miss one of your responses, don't push it.

2. If I get real lost, I'll clear you, but also, sometimes I'll just think I'm the shit at flowing when actually im catching like 2/3 of the responses sooo...

3. Idk where my threshold for starting to drop stuff is but it's probably somewhere around 225 WPM.

4. Don't send a speech doc because you plan on breaking the sonic barrier. I'll allow it if it's because your mic is trash or you cut out a lot

Extensions

1. ***Generally, I don't care if you extend card names. In fact, I would much rather you just said "Extend the C1 about Iran, that it would expand and lead to nuke war" or something like that. As long as I get your links and your impact, I'm good. I don't see the point in making y'all repeat yourselves for 30 seconds in each speech in the back half. This means I fully expect this to be in your speech. I'm making this easy on y'all. If you miss your impact, that's not my fault.

2. When extending responses and turns, keep in mind that my flowing is shitty. I still don't think you need the card names, but it'd help me on the flow a lot if you just told me the number of the response and the gist of it.

3. ***If your opponents extend case/turns/defense through ink, just say its through ink. If I don't have that ink on my flow, that's a big yikes.

4. ***I just lifted a lot of the regulation PF burden off of the summary/FF's shoulders. If you somehow still go 300 WPM in your summary, expect me to be very unhappy. If you blip through the 1 sentence extension, I might not catch it and think you dropped case, so slow down when you extend. Or just be slow the whole time.

Speech Stuff: Responding

1. 2nd rebuttal only has to frontline turns. Conceded contentions/turns have 100% strength of link, which is NOT the same thing as 100% probability of impact.

2. 1st summary needs to backline any frontlines that the 2nd rebuttal put on their defense if they want that defense in final focus. Dropped defense only needs to be "extended" in 2nd summary.

3. ***Turns have to be in summary. If you extend a dropped turn and frame it as defense in 1st final focus, I'll allow it.

4. No new responses to case/turns in summary (1st summary can frontline turns). No new frontlines in FF.

5. Signpost. Ideally, list # of responses to each argument before going into it.

Speech Stuff: Weighing

1. *** Only do real weighing please. I'll still evaluate it, but I die a little bit inside everytime someone tells me their two reasons they outweigh are probability and clarity of impact.

2. ***The last speech for new weighing is summary (not counting meta-weighing).

a) 1st FF is allowed if nobody does it before, and 2nd FF is allowed if nobody does it before (including 1st FF).

3. *** If both sides win case and weigh and nobody interacts with the other weighing/does meta-weighing, I'll presume.

4. I'd prefer if you didn't weigh on the flow (don't weigh as you get to their C1), but rather if all the weighing was separate from the line-by-line in your speech.

Crossfire

1. I'll probably be listening. If you're funny or smart in cross, your speaks will go up, and if you're rude or dumb in cross, your speaks will go down. A few more things on that:

a) Any sort of question or comment in the crossfire that has to do with you seeing evidence after the crossfire will annoy the shit outta me. You could be fantastic in round, but if you keep doing that in cross, your speaks will not reflect your impeccable speeches.

b) Inserting speeches into cross makes me sad.

c) My favorite crossfires happen when teams have multiple quickfire lines of questioning, even if nobody concedes anything in the process. Understanding when you're circling or when you're not going to get a concession and moving on is a goddamn talent.

2. ***Nobody is obligated to talk during cross-x. If you and the other team want to prep for 3 minutes, I'll allow it. If either team wants to ask questions, though, the other team's gotta answer them.

2. ***If you wanna use flex prep to ask questions, go for it.

Progressive Argumentation: I didn't run a lot of progressive arguments as a debater, but I did help write a cap K last year, and my school has won several rounds on paraphrasing theory, so I'm exposed to the argumentation.

1. *** For ALL debaters considering running progressive args in my round: I think that progressive arguments do belong in PF, but NOT in the way that they do in CX/LD. They should a) be read at the pace of a normal case, and b) be well-tagged so that the case itself is understandable OR paraphrased. If you spread me a semiocap K straight out of the backfiles, and your speech doc is extremely confusing, then I'll still evaluate it AS BEST I CAN, but your speaks will TANK. Debate, progressive or not, should be accessible and comprehensible. I also prefer paragraph theory when judging, even though I think that the shell format is better-organized, because I think that shells are more exclusionary.

2. You should extend theory and K's more rigorously than case, because it may be harder for myself/other debaters to grasp initially, so repeating it and explaining it well is helpful.

3. ***I default no RVI's, CI > Reasonability, DtA > DtD, but this is only if neither side tells me what to do. If you don't know what this means, maybe don't run theory (or ask me before round, I don't know that much more than y'all but I'll do my best).

4. ***By default, I will evaluate Theory and Ks before case, but since both have a ROB, if neither side tells me whether I go to Theory first or K's first in a debate where they're at odds with each other, I'll just kick both and go to the case debate. PLEASE do this weighing.

5. ***I'll evaluate tricks but I don't particularly like them. I'd easily take a paragraph theory argument about why tricks are bad because they reduce clash or arguments about why the spirit of the resolution > text of the resolution. ALSO DON'T HIDE TRICKS. Put them in a contention (or 5), or in a subpoint (can be in an unrelated contention) or in an over/underview. If it's hidden in your debt contention link chain, I'm not evaluating it.

Evidence ethics.

1. I'm not calling cards if nobody tells me to/there are no evidence conflicts.

2. ***I think if your evidence doesn't have a warrant but you do, I have no problem with that warrant/evidence combo. If your evidence and you have different warrants, that might be a problem.

3. If someone miscuts evidence and it's called out, I won't evaluate the card. As David puts it, "If you expect me to drop a debater for miscut evidence, read theory."

Speaks.

1. I'll generally just gut-check how good you are. That includes how well you speak and how smart the things you say are. If you concede defense/a contention and then spin it to work for you, I'll be super duper impressed.

2. ***If you get really passionate and curse in a speech, I'll probably laugh and boost your speaks. If you curse at someone, I will probably frown and tank your speaks.

3. ***I like sass and humor. Don't be rude.

4. ***Me and my old partner used to turn our team name (Montgomery Blair JK) into a joke at the end of our cases. We'd say "Judge, we may be Montgomery Blair JK but we're not just kidding when we tell you that.." Anything less cringy than this is appreciated.

Other Important Things

1. Wear what you want. Be comfortable, whether that's dressed up or dressed down. Just make sure you wear something.

Fun Stuff.

1. Worldstar rules apply. See them here (bottom of the paradigm, speaker ceiling doesn't apply): https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53657

2. At the request of both members of both teams (agree before the round), we can debate an entirely different topic (previous NSDA topic or otherwise, hell if y'all have prep for pancakes v. waffles, I'm down).

3. AJR Lyrics boost speaks, unless they're poorly inserted. If I don't catch em, oops.

That's it.

^This paradigm is heavily influenced by David Kinane, whom you can check out here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=40974.

Pranav Konduri Hire

Hey!!

I did PF Debate for 3 years at St. John's on the Texas and National Circuit.

My debate philosophy mirrors that of a regular flow judge but there are a couple specific things you should probably know

1) I guess I'm tech over truth. It's pretty easy to just call your opponents out if they're making a false argument and if you give me pretty clear warranting as to why its untrue I'll buy it as defense.

2) I didn't go super fast when I debated, but speed is okay with me. With that being said, I'm not like a flowing god so if you go super quick I'll probably lose you, but don't worry I'll make it obvious or just yell "speed". also please signpost or else I'm gonna have no clue what's happening

3) I never ran progressive arguments, but a) I'll vote off of theory if it's well explained and actually deserving, but I WOULD ADVISE NOT READING IT TO BEGIN WITH I WOULDN'T TRUST ME TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION IF IT'S A THEORY DEBATE. i even buy theory in a paragraph format. also, don't just read theory to pick up a ballot; only read it if an actual abuse occurred, but if you just spread through a shell in front of an unsuspecting team that has no clue how to answer it or clearly doesn't know what's happening, im nuking your speaks. b) i have no experience with critical arguments (Ks), but again, if it's well explained and extended, i'll vote on it.

4) my threshold for extensions is kinda high. you need a link and an impact in both the summary and the final focus. also, you gotta extend warrants; not sure why people just seem to forget what those are from time to time.

5) don't go for everything just to flex; collapse and spend time weighing.

6) weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round. however, i will evaluate new 1st ff weighing

7) summary and final focus need to be cohesive; i'm not voting on stuff that was new in ff

8) first summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it was frontlined and its important defense; plus, you have three minutes it can't be that hard now

9) 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline offensive arguments on the case (i.e. turns, disads, etc.); any unresponded offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

10) offensive overviews in general are probably bad for debate and you should not read them in front of me. if you read one in second rebuttal especially, my threshold for responses will be EXTREMELY low. also like 95% of the time you could just take parts from the overview and read as DAs or turns so it really isn't necessary

11) don't be annoying in cross; there's a clear line between being aggressive and being mean and if you cross that line you better win the round because your speaks are getting destroyed

12) i won't really feel the need to call for evidence unless its absolutely necessary or you tell me to call for it

13) don't hide behind evidence; if someone reads an analytical response that has a logical warrant behind it, it isn't enough to tell me to prefer you because you have some random author on your side, engage with your opponents and actually debate instead of screaming the names of research institutions back and forth

14) If neither side has any semblance of offense or risk of offense at the end of the round, i presume neg on topics having to do with a policy action

15) if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. you are getting the L and your speaks will be nuked. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person

17) the last thing i'll say is that, while i will always have a special place in my heart for debate, i know that this activity is not the best sometimes and can be overly toxic and super stressful. i will try my hardest to try to make every debater comfortable and feel welcome and you should do the same for your opponents.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on facebook.

Aakash Kurapati Hire 8 rounds

Jenna Lea Hire

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 12:11 PM PDT

Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a sophomore at Cornell University. I did Parli for a year and Public Forum for three years back in high school. Now, I've been doing college policy for two years :) I typically run trad policy stuff, but I'm used to hearing (and sometimes running) K's and T - so you can probably get away with running most things. Contact me for email chains at:

jzhou0303@gmail.com

For LD: I'm pretty new to coaching LD, but I do have my policy experience to supplement my understanding.

Good with evaluating traditional arguments all around, and I can definitely handle spreading. However, for online tournaments, I'd suggest speaking at a slightly slower speed so I can hear you and your mic doesn't cut out. My wifi is kinda spotty, so I may ask for speech docs. I understand what a value/value criterion are, but I've never actually competed with them; I'm still in the process of learning about them. I am used to progressive framing, though.

I'm fine with evaluating some of the wackier progressive arguments, like high theory or tricky T stuff, but keep in mind that I might not know what you're talking about!! I know the more basic stuff like Foucault's biopower and Baudrillard's simulation theory, but I will not know what you're saying if you start talking about Deleuze. There is a limit to these sorts of things!!!

For PF: I think paraphrasing cards is alright, but I will call for cards if necessary (or if you ask me to).

I'll understand spreading, but it's somewhat unadvisable because your mic might cut out. Please signpost in your speeches or else I won't be able to flow!!

No impacts, no dub >:) Trigger warnings are great! Please read them when you find them necessary. Please go hard and roast each other in cross (I won't flow it though lol).

I'll evaluate theory in PF, I'm alright with RVI's, and you should feel free to run trix (but keep in mind that I might get lost).

Brandon Lu Hire

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:35 PM EDT

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

Jason Zhaokun Luo Hire 8 rounds

Ian Mackey-Piccolo Hire

Ritvik Mahendra Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:32 AM CDT

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

Shalin Mehta Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 1, 2021 at 5:36 AM CDT

Background

Competed in PF at Lovejoy High School in Lucas, Texas for 4 years. I was ok I guess.

Currently I'm a freshman at Rice University in Houston.

Add me to email chain: shalin.mehta16@gmail.com

Short Version: I'm your average PF flow judge. Debate is a game. This paradigm is a set of rules that I generally believe to be good. However nothing is concrete. If you tell me to evaluate something a different way and I think you win that argument then that’s what I will do.

Long Version:

1) I'm fine with speed but not full spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast.

2) tech > truth. If it is conceded that the government is run by the Walrus Mafia then the government is run by the Walrus Mafia and that’s on you for dropping it. That being said, if you do make a wacky arg such as saying that the government is run by the Walrus Mafia then my threshold for responses will go down.

3) plz weigh

4) I think second rebuttal should respond to EVERYTHING in first rebuttal that you want to go for. This can be hard with time so at the very least respond to turns or I will consider them conceded. I think this is very important for the overall fairness of the round, because the 2nd speaking advantage in PF is crazy.

5) summaries are 3 minutes now – defense isn't sticky.

6) Offense you want me to vote on should be in both summary and final focus. Plz collapse, I will be very sad if you don't and you will be sad when you see your speaks. I accept new weighing in final.

7) I will ALWAYS prefer logical analysis and warranting over unwarranted evidence.

8) no independent offense in second rebuttal.

9) Framing is cool but plz warrant it.

10) I expect you to go line by line in every speech.

Some other things:

Evidence

- tell me to call it if you think it's been miscut

- If I call a piece of evidence please give me the cut card not a pdf or website.

Theory, Ks, etc.

- I am not super confident in my ability to correctly evaluate these, so run at your own risk, but I will listen (I'm def more comfortable with Theory than Ks)

Khegan Meyers Myjudgeisin Highschool

Last changed on Mon January 17, 2022 at 2:45 PM EDT

Did PF for 4 years at King High School, now attending Emory University in ATL.

Please add me to the email chain/google doc (I prefer google doc): Khem6th@gmail.com

If both teams agree, I will give 45 seconds of prep time instead of grand cross (taken simultaneously by both teams after summary, does not get added to individual team prep time).

Feel free to postround me, I don't really mind since it makes me a better judge and my decisions more clear. My decision, as written, will not change.

Pretty standard PF flow:

- Warranting is big important – cards shouldn’t do all your work

- Second speaking team should at least frontline turns in rebuttal, I will put less weight on new frontlines made to defense in Second Summary (meaning a blippy response/backline in final by 1st speaking team will be adequate)

- Anything in Final has to be in Summary, except weighing for either team and unresponded defense for 1st speaking team

- I will only vote on things that make it into final focus, I work backwards on my flow

- If there's no ink on the link chain, you can use blips to extend it in final focus, but try to keep it cohesive in summary.

- Please collapse

- Explicit weighing (jargon) and explanations of mechanisms

- I prefer more probable, low severity impacts over less probable, high severity impacts – the best thing you can do is provide historical examples

- Speed: I prefer well-warranted, conversation-paced debate. If you are to go fast, keep in mind that I flow on my computer and can type like max 80wpm when I have text in front of me, so don’t go mad fast else I’ll miss stuff

- I will vote on the easiest path to the ballot

- I do not care about cross, make it fun, anybody can talk if they want to

-"Are you tech over truth?" - to some extent, I will evaluate an argument I know to be false if its not responded to but this doesn't mean that you should skip warranting just cause its on the flow. Like other judges, my threshold for quality of responses goes down the more out-there an argument is.

Progressive arguments:

- General:

I do not have a lot of experience with progressive argumentation (this means probably argue util for a better ballot). If you want me to vote on progressive arguments, please give me explicit explanation of what the link is and good explanation of why the impact comes first. I don’t really like unwarranted “moral duty” arguments but warranted and explained moral weighing is fine.

- Kritiks:

With Kritiks, I have little experience with them as well – if you want me to vote on a Kritik, I need really defined role of the ballot arguments of why my vote makes a structural change. I don’t understand a lot of K lit so please make it as if you were talking to a friend of why something in the system needs to change and less like you’re in front of a well-versed policy debater.

- Theory:

I have a little more experience with theory than general progressive args and Kritiks, but normative arguments need very good Standards and Voters/Impact for me to vote on it – I generally like undisclosed, paraphrased (heathen statement right?) PF but I’m open to good arguments on that or on other norms. Also, I do need you to go slower and present an actual flowable shell.

Evidence Ethics:

Please do not take any longer than a minute to find a piece of evidence, and if you are having technical issues finding a card please just say so.

Evidence should not be misrepresented, whether its cut or paraphrased. I will read evidence as its written, not how its cut or tagged, even if it’s not brought up by your opponents – I think it encourages lazy research practices and abuse of PF rules.

This being said, I likely won't call for a card unless it is a) pivotal in my decision, b) its veracity is contested and important, or c) if both teams read opposing evidence and none gives a warrant of why their's is better

Speaks:

- I think speaks should be based off the pool, so no set rules on scale

- If you make the round fun for me to judge, or if I laugh, you and everybody else in the round will probably get higher speaks

- I don't listen to cross, so do whatever you want really

- I appreciate competitors being nice to each other and friendly, it makes the activity more fun for everyone. This event, though competitive, should support a learning environment with a community so treat your opponents like you would your friends in conversation :)

Misc:

I don't have an onboard camera for my computer, and its a hassle for me to use the usb plugin one. I likely won't have my camera on.

Yall gotta rock with the oral rfd ❗️❗️

Adam Mimou Hire

Robert William Missell Hire

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:48 AM EDT

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years now. I do college policy now. I'm “tech” (tabula rasa, will vote for pretty much any argument, won't do any work for you, etc etc)

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

Bergen YS is peak

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

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or racist pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on UNSC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

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

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need to You need to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

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

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going too new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

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

Progressive Args

Ks:

I'm a K debater myself now, I read Beller, SO I'm 100% cool with you running a K. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to. My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it)

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

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

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

Repeatedly cut your opponents off
Be rude to anyone in the round
Taking super long to pull up ev
Extending through ink
Not signposting
Calling everything dropped when it's not
Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

Throw in a Taylor Swift or Pusha T reference
Having fun with it
Bringing me long flow paper
Signposting well
Good weighing
Smart strategy
Calling states in Eastern Europe "Yugoslavia"

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

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhathonest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, you'll probably lose. I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then I probably would avoid ev challenges.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

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

FAQ

Can I use speed? Yeah I mean go for it but make sure you're clear, ideally send a doc, and keep in mind that if I can't flow it without looking at your doc then I'm probably not writing it down.
Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
Can I read new wieghing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
Is cross open? Sure we ball
Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
Does a split panel change my judging prefs? Generally, I still want all of the procedural things to meet my normal prefs BUT I will give y'all a bit more credence on things like extensions or the LbyL just don't be egregious
Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

Aamir Shamim Mohsin Hire 8 rounds

Asher Moll Hire

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 10:26 PM EDT

Hello

I debated PF at St. John's in Houston for 3 years on the Texas and national circuit.

1) Decided to put this at the top of my paradigm because I think it is important. I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a REAL violation in the round. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation rather than forcing me to evaluate progressive argumentation. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible.

2) Tech > truth, but my threshold for responses to arguments goes down if I think the argument is stupid

3) I am fine with speed, but don't go crazy -- if you spread I will probably lose you

4) I refuse to vote on an argument without a warrant. Even if a team drops a turn for example you still have to extend the warrant or else I don't care

5) Extensions in PF are bad. My threshold for extensions is somewhat high. If you go for an argument in summary/final focus, I expect you to extend both the link and the impact, at least

6) Collapsing is good. Going for multiple arguments in the late round can work, but I think for most rounds, collapsing on one or two pieces of offense will serve you best

7) Not voting on arguments in final that weren't in summary, please don't try that, I will notice

8) Weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided I think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. That said, you should still weigh in case I grant your opponents some offense. If I think both sides are winning offense, I resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. I will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there is no other weighing in the round

9) Frontlining efficiently in 2nd rebuttal is a good idea and is generally strategic

10) 1st summary does not have to extend defense if the 2nd rebuttal does not frontline. Extending offense and weighing is fine. Second summary always has to extend defense in addition to going for offense and weighing. It is also probably worth noting that I am little more lenient with weighing in 1st summary -- if you do not do it or do just a little it will not hurt you nearly as much as if it happens in 2nd summary

11) Offensive overviews in general are probably bad for debate and you should not read them in front of me. If you read one in second rebuttal especially, my threshold for responses will be EXTREMELY low. Also 95% of the time you could just take parts from the overview and read as DAs or turns so it really isn't necessary

12) Card with warrant > analytic with warrant > card with no warrant > analytic with no warrant

13) You need to signpost, I will not flow if you do not

14) Any offense not responded to after 2nd rebuttal is conceded, you can only weigh against it

15) Please be chill in cross. You can crack jokes and have fun, but there is a very fine line between perceptual dominance and being rude. I will dock speaks for overt rudeness/being overly aggressive. I don't care if you won every crossfire, crossfire does not win my ballot. Grand cross is a mess but can be used strategically. Try to make the most of it

16) I will call for evidence if I feel it is necessary to make my decision/if the other team tells me to. I am less likely to call for evidence in prelims, though. If I find out that the evidence is misconstrued, depending on how bad the violation is, I may drop the team

17) If neither side has any offense at the end of the round, I will presume first speaking team. This is because I believe that 2nd speaking is a huge advantage and if you are unable to capitalize on that advantage by generating offense you should not be rewarded

18) If you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. you are getting the L and your speaks will be nuked. It should go without saying to just not be a bad person

19) The last thing I'll say is that, while I will always have a special place in my heart for debate, I know that this activity is not the best sometimes and can be overly toxic. I will try my hardest to make every debater feel welcome

If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them at the tournament or on Facebook. You can find my Facebook here

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

Incorporating Frank Ocean lyrics in cross/speeches will result in a speaker point boost

Anisha Musti Hire

Jayant S Namdhari Hire

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:52 AM EDT

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Sonia Nihalani Hire

Rahul V. Penumetcha Hire

Last changed on Mon February 26, 2024 at 4:26 PM CDT

utd 26'

email: rahulpenumetcha10@gmail.com

NDT x2

Top Level -

The debate should be up to the debaters and I will not intervene - any of my opinions discussed below will not affect my decision-making process if any argument in the debate is made over them.

A lot of this philosophy (and my beliefs in debate) will echo austin kiihnl, kevin hirn, and julian habermann's philosophies'.

There is almost always a risk of any argument, its a question of how the debaters do calc as to which risk matters more

I will vote on any argument that I disagree with or is not true if the argument is won at a technical level (doesn't apply to non-negotiables)

"Evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly"

"I have a fairly strong preference for organized, technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it a lot harder than you'd like for me to adjudicate the debate." (From Austin)

Notes:

-Analytics need to be used more (esp vs less truthful args)

-I won't judge kick unless told to

-I don't lean a certain way on cp theory but 2ac blippiness means the neg block has a low threshold to meet. I'm better than most for theory to make it into the 1AR but still, every cp theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg

-We meet on T is a yes/no question - generally T debates are my favorite when done well.

-“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.” (From Julian)

-I've spent a decent amount of time reading critical literature with the most time spent on Calvin Warren, Frank Wilderson, Christina Shrape, Arthur Kroker, and Douglas Kellner in that order. This means my threshold for your explanation might inevitably be higher, however aff specific contextualization and the explanation of the theory of power on the line by line should overcome any gap in understanding.

-I have a sweet spot for impact turn debates.

-My evaluation of K affs vs FW is best for the aff when there is either a firm impact turn strategy with some metric to evaluate aff case offense or a counter interp that focuses on establishing an inroads to 2nr offense while solving external impacts. I'm better for the negative when the strategy is either hard right fairness and providing a metric to view aff offense through or a strategy that revolves around clash/fairness and establishing ways FW can solve aff offense via a TVA/SSD. If it matters I've been on the neg side of these debates slightly more than the aff.

Non-negotiables

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or misgender.

CX is binding

I will not vote on anything that did not happen in the round because that is not what a judge ought to do.

If the debate can be made safer, accessible etc. Please let me know.

Tom Perret Hire

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 6:41 AM MDT

tom.jj.perret@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Tom - I debated PF at Park City on the national circuit for two years. Please respect your opponents, their pronouns, and the circumstances they might be debating in while online.

Overall, I'm a pretty standard tech judge: If Team A is winning a link to an impact and Team B is not, Team A is going to win. If both teams are winning a link to an impact, I look to the weighing.

General:

I'm flowing what you say, not what I read off of your doc; if I don't understand what you're saying and I flow it incorrectly, that is your fault. That being said, I can handle speed as long as it's clear.

I used to think that this goes with without saying, but recent debates force me to remind you that you need full link extensions in summary and final focus.

I struggle to understand probability weighing; if you've won a link to an impact, it is probable. Impacts that are actually improbable definitionally have tenuous links that are easy to answer analytically. As a result, please don't use your probability "weighing" as a chance to read defense in final focus when it should have just been formulated as a link response in rebuttal.

Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

I'm not going to call for evidence unless you tell me to.

Theory:

Read theory in the speech after the violation occurs.

You need to extend the interp and drop the debater.

I think that paraphrasing is bad and that disclosure is good, but I'm not going to hack for you if you've lost that debate on the flow.

I default to competing interps, but I'm open to well-warranted explanations of the benefits of reasonability.

Critical Arguments:

I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of k debate, but I am familiar with some critical theory and am open to hearing well-warranted arguments.

I read a good amount of post-fiat structural violence framing in high school.

I will cap your speaks at 27 if you read tricks.

Abhishek Pratap Hire

Last changed on Fri March 12, 2021 at 6:58 AM CDT

Elkins '20 | TAMU

Email: a9pratap@gmail.com

messenger is preferred

i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit

General

- Debate is a game. I consider myself to be tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact

- Speed: go as fast as you want but provide a speech doc and go slow on tags if you are faster than what is considered normal for the activity. I’ll yell clear once and allow anyone in the round to call it whenever. Just keep in mind the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something or lag behind so do it at your own risk.

- Signposting and weighing are essential

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

Progressive stuff

- I won’t say that I will not evaluate any any Ks, theory, or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these. The only exception is offensive overviews or DA’s in second rebuttal, don’t

Rebuttal

- I won’t require you to frontline in second rebuttal, anything not responded to is conceded

- Any defense that you concede to should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was read

o A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with tour argument not just “we concede to the delinks”

- Turns conceded in second rebuttal or first summary have a 100% probability and can only be beaten back by outweighing them

Summary/Final

- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.

- Case offense/ turns need to be extended by author name or source otherwise I will not extend it for you

o do- “extend jones who writes that extensions like these are good because they are easier to follow”

o don't do “remember we tell you extensions like these are good”

- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

- New evidence is only fine for frontlining in first summary, defense must be extended since they 3 mins

- For FF, a good friend told me it should include everything you tell your friends/teammates after the round is over. Write my ballot for me.

- Weighing must be made before final focus, the only type of new weighing allowed is responding to it from second summary, second summary is last chance to weigh. Personally I think link weighing is more convincing than impact weighing.

- I do not think weighing is essential in winning my ballot but it definitely helps

- For FF extensions I don’t have a high threshold, all I need is your explanation of your link story and its impact.

Other

- Evidence, I will only call for it if someone in the round explicitly tells me to. I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage. You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked (exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it)

- Speaks, I will reward them based on strategy and decorum

- Cross, it is binding and I will pay attention any crucial point has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it

Do not

- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading (includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices)

- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/xenophobic and all those ists

- Read a K-style argument dealing with identity when you aren’t a member of that group.

o i.e- dont read a fem K if you’re a male male team and ESPECIALLY dont read it on females if you’re a male male team, that is just trivializing the argument

- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other than that I agree with nilay raj and bryan with few stylistic differences

Harsha Ramya Rajesh Hire

Arjun N Sakthi Hire

Lawrence Salonga CoronaTime

Last changed on Fri April 10, 2020 at 2:49 PM EDT

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” - Albert Einstein

Hey there! I’ve debated Public Forum for two years at Eagan High School, so I have a couple preferences when it comes to what goes on in round. I believe that at its core, Public Forum is a game of not who can make the best technical arguments, but a game of who best convinces the judge. If no side convinces me, I will vote neg on presumption that the Squo is the best possible world. Aff, feel free to change my mind on that.

Add me to the email chain: roboninja024@gmail.com. If you’re spreading, I expect that you send out speech docs.

1. Above everything else, I want there to be clear links, clear impacts, and clear weighing. That’s the cleanest and easiest way for you to get something for me to flow through. Multiple sketchy links, or a huge impact that isn’t thoroughly explained, may still have some weight in my decision, but it will be much harder to convince me with that.

2. Tech > Truth but don’t go overboard with it. If you’re making a million small arguments in hopes that your opponents drop one, I simply won’t evaluate it. Give me a clear reason as to why your technical argument works out, and even if it doesn’t sound true, I’ll evaluate it if you can convince me. Nuke war impacts are good!

3. Speaks start out at 27, and only go up unless you do something really offensive. On that note, please be kind to each other in cross-x. It doesn’t look good for you to be hyper-aggressive in cross. I don’t flow it but I listen, so extend any arguments you make in cross.

4. Second rebuttal should spend at least a minute, preferably two, responding to all or most of first rebuttal. This encourages clash, and allows aff to make an argument against it in summary. Otherwise, the advantage in unfairly skewed to the neg. I won’t consider a response dropped if neg doesn’t respond in second rebuttal, but you’re going to really have to convince me when you finally respond. No new arguments after first summary, and everything in summary has to be extended into final focus for me to weigh it.

5. I’m alright with a little bit of speed, but please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. Giving an off time roadmap in PF is completely unnecessary, and I will doc 0.5 speaks each time you do it. The only exception is if you’re going in a really weird order, and I would still like that you signpost. Tell me which card you’re specifically responding to, or which argument you’re targeting. This makes it so that I don’t have to guess on where to flow something, and ultimately helps you.

6. I have no experience whatsoever with Ks, so really explain it to me if you want me to vote off of it. Theory is a little more familiar to me, but if you’re spreading shells then it’ll be obvious that it’s only friv theory. I believe that theory is good for the pf space to check abuses, but explain why it’s important to me, and why I need to be voting off of it. If you don’t even understand theory, don’t run it. That’ll look bad on your part. CI > Reasonability. Theory can be an RVI, but convince me. DTA is easier to win on than DTD, but I’ll do my best to evaluate either alternative properly.

6.a Shells I like: Paraphrasing, offensive language, and Non-action Ks.

6.b Shell I don’t like: Speed, Disclosure (automatically an RVI if it’s brought up)

7. Don’t run morally sketchy things like “death good”, “education bad”, or “fairness bad”.

Srikar Satish Hire

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 4:43 AM CDT

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

Theory (but not stupid and friv)
Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
Framing / Meta Weighing
I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

RJ Shah Hire

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 4:36 PM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

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

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

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

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

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

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

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

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

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

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

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

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

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

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

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

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

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

Andy Shufer Hire

Will Sjostrom Hire

Last changed on Mon May 13, 2024 at 11:40 AM EDT

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

I just graduated from the University of Georgia and I will be attending law school next year!

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Raj Solanki Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 6:10 AM CDT

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

~~30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptop~~I will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.
My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument
dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

"I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want
Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.
There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.
I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.
Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

take flex prep if needed

Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

Aaron Squire Hire

Last changed on Sun April 12, 2020 at 2:41 PM EDT

I am a PF debater in VA with 3 years of experience from a generally lay circuit, but willing to listen to progessive arguments.

Prefs:

Debate is an activity that should focus mainly on speech. It’s called national speech and debate for a reason. Your points may be very good, but if they’re just thrown out without much rhyme or reason then it will significantly hinder the argument being made. Speed isn’t a problem, as long as it’s spoken clearly while understanding that if I miss something, it isn’t on me.

Frontlining should be included in the second rebuttal, that’s an advantage for the second speaker that they should be able to take full advantage of.

Sticky defense is shady in my opinion, you can include it, but don’t always expect it to be judged.

I am not opposed to passionate crossfires, this is debate, so you should be passionate about your case. This does not mean start making personal attacks against your opponents, as I will drop your points made preceding that.

Impacts are extremely important to me, the case with the better defended impacts will win more often times than not.

Evidence: I’m not huge on the use of pure evidence to argue an entire case, it doesn’t matter how much carded evidence you have, if someone has a case that beats yours with logic and more general evidence, the latter will win 9/10

Roadmapping: I am a fan of roadmapping, and I encourage teams to do so.

Final Focus: Final focus is for weighing, not adding evidence. Any evidence added in final focus will not be judged, I want to hear why one team thinks they won the round. Explain why I should prefer your case over your opponents.

Speaker Points: I grade on a 6 point system from 24-30

24: Worst debate I’ve ever heard, reserved for the lowest of the low, or people who are not even trying.

25: Case is backed up terribly, evidence is very weak, contentions don’t relate to the resolution.

26: Weak case, evidence is lacking. Debater doesn’t understand the case as well as they should.

27: Average case, nothing spectacular in either direction.

28: Good case, adequate understanding of the resolution and general topic. Strong points are made and defended.

29: Very strong case, points are logical and everything is backed appropriately. Some room for improvement, but not much.

30: Best debate I’ve ever heard. Everything was laid out and defended perfectly, no room for improvement whatsoever.

Theory: I do not like theory debate. Do not do theory debate.

Counterplans/Kritiks: I have no experience with policy, so you can do it, but I might not completely understand why you are doing it.

Other things to note:

I do not expect a speech doc, however if audio is extremely bad, or internet is spotty, one should be available upon request.

My email for debate chains is: squireaa1@gmail.com

Saurish Srivastava Hire

Andrew Stallworth StallworthDebateAcademy

Emma Stockwell Hire

Last changed on Thu April 23, 2020 at 8:09 AM EDT

add me to the email chain emma.mae.stockwell@gmail.com

you can pretty much do whatever you want in my rounds, as long as you follow my house rules:

don’t be a d**k
yeah, that’s pretty much it

general paradigm will be on the top, followed by things specific to LD and PF

quick prefs

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

K - 2

Phil - 3

Trix - 4

assorted fruit

-speed 8/10 (w/o doc)

-tech > truth

-flex prep is kool

-I like progressive rounds

-feel free to TKO if u wanna try

-formality is definitely not necessary

-feel free to post round just don't be abrasive

-please extend your warranting and signpost for my sake

-read literally any argument in front of me and I will vote for it

-I won't flow cross... play music, make sandwiches, do whatever

I'll try to be as tab as possible in round so don't make me intervene, its your job to call out abuse. However, I do believe debate should be a safe and welcoming space so please respect your opponent. Provide trigger warnings. Please don't misgender or force anyone to come out in round nobody likes that uwu. I will have no problem telling you that you're an asshole, dropping you, and tanking your speaks. Strike me if you don't posses basic human decency ig

things i like

-weighing weighing weighing

-well-timed political jokes

-trigger warnings

-extending warranting

-disclosure on the wiki

-Non-T affs

-sass

-sharing your table tote

-aesthetic laptop stickers

things I don't like

-"fOr A bRiEF oFf TiMe RoAdMaP"

-misgendering anyone

-"wHaTs YoUr PaRaDiGmMm"

-not having trigger warnings

-more than 5 condo

-"definitions will be provided upon request"

-whipping out the NSDA rule book

-offensive shit

Lincoln Douglas

Plans/CPs: my primary form of debate. make sure u tell me why its competitive

PICs: PICs good, but you can convince me otherwise. you need a net benefit

Role of the Ballot: This is apriori. Will influence how I vote a bunch in K debate

Theory: I will vote on RVIs if they are made, especially if against friv theory. that being said, I will vote for friv theory

T: Make sure you specify what the impact on the round is

Pre-fiat Ks: I happen to love a good performance K. They make debate rounds particularly more enjoyable

Post-fiat Ks: Run whatever you want. However, I do want alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution" or "reject the off" like duh

K affs: make sure your link is strong (wether your Aff is topical or not)

K v K: YAY! JUST YAY!!

Narratives: Just make sure you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round

Anything else: Try me, I'll vote on pretty much anything.

Public Forum:

-Weigh before FF

-Collapse i'll be sad

-I default util if no FW is read

-I can take any and all "PF speed"

-Do the flip and reflow b4 the round

-Defense isn't sticky b/c summary is now 3 minutes

-Both the pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof

- I don't care about paraphrasing but you will get low speaks for bad evidence ethics

if you are running progressive args you should probably reference the LD paradigm -- I will vote for anything in PF

**Pref me if you want a judge who is actually familiar with K lit and high theory**

Framework: the complete neglect of framing args in round makes me sad. If your opponent makes one, you have to substantially refute it or I'll have to presume to your opponent (unless the off chance they win none of case)

Theory and T: Yes, I will vote on theory. Its kinda funny watching pfers try to run theory, so humor me. Better yet, surprise me and run it correctly. You can run T but make sure you specify what the impact of T on the round is or it means nothing to me

CPs: Sure, just not very many condo please its PF

Ks: usually not very well run, but I've been surprised before. I'm v well versed in K lit and high theory so feel free to run niche Ks I'll at least be familiar

Johnathan Sun Hire

Aatreya Tewary Hire

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2023 at 5:19 AM EDT

Preface/TLDR: I haven't judged a whole ton since I debated in 2020 but I'm a general "flow judge." PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont go fast, just collapse well and engage with responses, clash is good! TBH: treat me like a lay judge, use the lay case yall got prepared please

email: aatreyatew@utexas.edu

Experience: I debated in HS in PF as the T of Cinco ranch RT. I did pf from 2016-2020 in a ton of locals and on the national circuit, and was successful, so maybe that helps you get an idea of my experience. Specific things that might be relevant that I stole from someone else's paradigm:

1) I think I'm tech over truth. if something is false I think it's pretty easy to just warrant that with your own words in an analytic or ev, but you need to say it and i'll accept that as defense.

2) If you go fast I probably won't catch it, sorry I'm not good w speed ???? please signpost hella. excellent signposting will always get a 30 from me

3) I never ran progressive arguments so your mileage may vary, and my limited knowledge of progressive stuff has all disappeared so if you choose to run these arguments I guess just explain it well? I'm really unsure of how to evaluate these arguments to be honest so probably best to just avoid them.

4) My advice: please, please, please don't go for everything just to flex; collapse and spend time weighing.

7) summary and final focus need to be cohesive; i'm not voting on stuff that was new in ff unless ig its weighing in first ff

8) don't be annoying in cross; there's a clear line between being aggressive and being mean and if you cross that line your speaks will reflect that. make cross productive

9) i won't really feel the need to call for evidence unless its absolutely necessary or you tell me to call for it

10) don't hide behind evidence; if someone reads an analytical response that has a logical warrant behind it, it isn't enough to tell me to prefer you because you have some random author on your side, engage with your opponents

11) If neither side has any semblance of offense or risk of offense at the end of the round, i presume first speaker.

12) if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc = L + bad speaks imo. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me @aatreyatew@utexas.edu

Keith Tran Hire

Randy Wang Hire

Santiago Weiland Hire

Last changed on Tue August 25, 2020 at 2:04 PM EDT

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years and closed out Texas PF State in 2020. I’ve read a total of nothing on this topic.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Full disclosure I 100% copied this paradigm from my old partner Cooper Carlile (Bold = most important)

If you say "off the clock roadmap" I will give you a 25. just tell me what the structure is

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded :/ You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read

also im good with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it.

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20." - Cara Day

I will also disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage." So have fun!

Styles Weiler Hire

Last changed on Wed April 22, 2020 at 6:01 PM MDT

Experience: I did public forum for two years after wasting my sophomore year in Congress. My partner and I took second place at the Utah 5A state tournament in 2019 (our opponents said we won the round but what can you do). I also competed in world schools debate at the 2019 National Tournament where I was a triple Octo-finalist. I identify as a liberal solely because the current republican platform is stupid and Donald Trump is a lunatic. That being said, I will not be swayed to a certain side of the debate just because of my political views. My dad is currently serving as a state senator here in Utah so I've had the opportunity to see debate and politics in action. I am currently pursuing a Law degree from BYU and hope to one day became a circuit court judge.

Paradigms:

Stick to your framework

Please sign post and let me know where your argument is headed

Definition battles are often pointless avoid them unless your case is built on them.

Warrants and analysis outweigh empirics for obvious reasons

Roadmaps are really unnecessary (under 5 seconds)

Speaker points are not going to be dropped because of decorum, eye contact, or presentation, all I care about is your coherency and efficacy.

I'll start at 28.5 and go up to a 29.5. If you want a 30 you gotta do one of these:

- roast Mitt Romney or Ben Sharpiro

- play smash during prep/cross ( no ganon mains )

- run a meme case well

- make a good "that's what she said" joke (-1 if its bad )

- speak in pig latin during cross

- set your timer alarm to something that will make me laugh

Anything not backed by a source will not be flowed. I don't want to hear any "common sense" arguments.

Cross Fire:

Please use cross time effectively, don't be a total dick but get in their face a little.

I put a lot of importance into your ability to perform well in cross. Avoid asking stupid questions such as ones that begin with "How do you feel about" and the like.

I pay very close attention to cross so don't feel obliged to recount everything that happened and just go straight to the effects of your questioning, etc.

Ask for cards during cross so we can run on time.

Pet Peeves:

Argument that relies entirely on complex link chains that are supported by poor reasoning. (That being said, if you have the evidence to prove say, Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, go right ahead.)

Questions that take more than 10 seconds (seriously its only 3 minutes hurry up)

not walking me through every individual cause and effect in your link chain (go ahead I dare u)

Out of date sources (I will doubt you and ask to see cards if necessary)

throwing out a million author names during your speech (Be specific in telling me what sources you are referencing.)

Spreading (I can only flow so fast.)

bringing up new evidence or arguments in your final speech. DON'T! (I cannot stress this enough)

If you got this far -- kudos to you. Thanks for reading my paradigm, I hope this is a great round and you have a great time in Speech and Debate. This was the highlight of my high school career, which probably sounds lame but I don't care.

Conner E. Williams Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 1, 2021 at 4:02 AM CDT

JBHS '20; GWU '24

Pronouns He/Him

Conflicted with James Bowie and Coppell

Bold=TLDR

- for questions/comments/concerns/for the email-chain you can reach me at williams.conner.professional20@gmail.com

This is largely copied from Andy Stubb's paradigm.

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact.

Progressive arguments* and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

*detail of my progressive knowledge/experience below

-Lay debate: easy, love it

-theory: the ones that are common in PF I'm very familiar with, if it's something I probably haven't seen, just explain it well.

-K's: I like K's, but I don't know ANY lit. That doesn't mean I can't evaluate a well-explained argument.

-Non-t K-aff's(?): see^, but I find them really interesting and will still do my best to evaluate it.

-tricks: I didn't have a pleasant introduction to these, so I'm fine with never returning. If you run them, I will probably be sad, but the flow is the flow ig.

-I literally do not know what the progressive argument hierarchy is, so tell me! if the round has 2 tricks, a non-t k-aff, and disclosure, tell me which order to evaluate these things in, or I don't want to hear it when I do it incorrectly.

My three major things are:

1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. The exception to this is clean drops, idc how terrible the warranting of an argument is if it's conceded.

2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you.

3. An extension IS: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. An extension is NOT any of those things on their own. If you fully extend the link but drop the impact, fantastic, you have successfully won a link into nothing. If you extend the impact but not the link, congratulations, I now have a mystery impact floating in the air that cannot and will not be weighed

On the topic of floating impacts, PLEASE weigh. if one side is running homelessness and one side is running food insecurity for example, tell me why I should vote on your argument; if you don't, this begs intervention and you can't be mad if we disagree on which one is more important.

PF specific:

-You have to frontline offense in the second rebuttal.

-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you

-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited. If your opponents are unfamiliar /uncomfortable with theory (maybe don't read it but if you really believe there was a violation I get it) I will probably prefer reasonability (sue me.) If both sides are familiar with theory then competing interps are chill.

Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc. I simply do not think it's fair to potentially determine breaks/seeding off of pure speech clarity, ESP with the current digital-only world we're living in.

- if you make a link turn, you should explain what the consequence of having access to their impact does for you, otherwise what is the point. Also if you end up going for the turn you must extend the uniqueness, the (turned) link, and the impact. just saying "we turned their x argument so that's offense for us" does not do anything for you.

Misc.

- I'm open to being post-rounded, I think it's good for the community. If I can't defend my decision then I shouldn't have made it. That being said I am not open to being harassed simply bc you disagree with what I said. Additionally, if this goes on for a while or honestly if it's super late at night I'll probably say that I'll be happy to speak with you at a later time/date and/or give you my email in case you have further questions.

-if there is literally not a single way to vote I'll default to whatever side upholds the squo (this is almost always neg but the wording of some recent resolutions has been odd) this is because the aff (usually) has the burden of proving that a change is beneficial, not just neutral.

-defense is not sticky

Parth Wokhlu Hire

Johnson n/a Wu Hire

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 2:32 AM PDT

he/him

PF:

add me to your email chain: Johnsondebateemail@gmail.com

I prefer all debaters to send speech docs with cards before each speech, case and rebuttal

TL;DR

Tabula rasa judge. I really like roadmaps and clear signpostings. For theories or K's to be evaluated, it must be explained very well. If you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. make sure to always extend and weigh. clean warranting is very important. Defense is sticky. Have cut cards ready to send.

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic.

Things I like:

Roadmaps and clear signpostings

Comparative weighing

Starting weighing in rebuttal

Parallelism in backhalf

Non-stock arguments (I like smart arguments, not frivolous arguments)

Things I don't like:

New responses or wEiGhiNg in grand cross because you undercovered the argument

New offensive overviews or DA dumps in second rebuttal

New responses to turns in second summary

Extending through ink or incomplete extensions

Being rude

Voting:

I default con for policy resolutions and first-speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm fine with TKOs but if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you lose with 25s

Progressive debate:

I evaluate theory, kritiks, LARP, performance, tricks, non-T kritiks, high theory, and basically anything.

You do not need to ask your opponents if they are comfortable with theory: "I don't know how to respond!" is not an actual response.

I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell.

General:

tech > truth. but my threshold for responses also decreases with the quality of the arguments made.

Second rebuttal must frontline, defense is sticky. if you want me to evaluate turns make sure to extend, implicate, and weigh throughout.

Extend offense and defense through summary and FF to be weighed. saying the word "extend" is not extending, you must explain your extensions. also make sure to weigh

Weighing is super important. If both sides have some risk of offence (which they usually do) I'll look to weighing. saying "we outweigh on magnitude isn't weighing because our impact is big" isn't weighing. Weighing must be interactive and try to start weighing early on.

I will not evaluate new material brought up in the backhalf except in first summary.

don't spam evidence, please explain why your evidence is preferable, don't just repeat your cards.

Worlds/Parli:

I make my decisions based on the flow, meaning I'll be more heavily convinced by good content than good style. However, I do evaluate truth>tech so please have good mechanization as well.

You should treat me as a person who is interested and generally knowledgeable in politics, philosophy, economics, etc

The burden of proofs and rejoinder always apply

I carry a slight bias towards liberal principles, ie free speech, democracy, believing that we have an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc

Please be realistic with your impacts, this is not pf.

Weighing is still very important. Debaters tend to be smart people and motions tend to be controversial. This means that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If you don't explain why your argument is more important than your opponents' points and they do, you will likely lose. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intuition. This is unpredictable. I am moody. You'll likely dislike my call. Don't do this.

Framing and characterization can help greatly with weighing and is just generally a good thing to do.

Overall:

Warrants/mechanisms are the most important in all formats of debate

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic

Feel free to ask me any specifics before the round

Most importantly, enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Follow @johnsonnwuu on Instagram for +0.5 speaks !

Jonah Wunder Hire

Last changed on Thu January 20, 2022 at 3:35 PM EDT

I have debated public forum for four years on the national circuit and local circuits.

Here's a list of expectations for the debaters in the round;

1) Talk at a reasonable speed. A lot of judge screws happen because the judge didn't really hear you argument. Don't let that happen.

I'll tell you if you're going too fast so please adjust if I tell you its too fast.

2) Don't read theory. Theory is usually a waste of time. If there is a major in-round issue that needs to be addressed, do so in paragraph form.

3) Convince me. You shouldn't focus exclusively on being tech or rhetoric-heavy. Both components are important.

4) Win crossfire. Crossfire is binding. It's almost impossible to come back from a very bad first crossfire. Make sure that you can defend your case and poke holes in you opponents arguments. If you sound like you have no idea what’s going on I will be less inclined to believe you during the round. Remember though, I will not evaluate the content of crossfire unless you mention it in one of your speeches.

5) Be likeable. If you are really unlikeable I will be less inclined to vote for you. Note: You can be aggressive without being rude/mean/etc.

6) Stay in time. I will give a ten second grace period to finish a sentence. Anything said after the 10 second grace period will not be evaluated.

Other things to keep in mind:

- Defense is not sticky.

- New arguments must be made before summary and weighing has to be introduced before final focus.

- Poorly implicated turns/DAs have zero value in the round.

- I will only evaluate what is said in final focus.

7) Include me on the email chain. My email is jonahwunder@gmail.com. If you evidence is trash then I'll probably drop you. If you take longer than 5 minutes to send a single piece of evidence, that evidence will not be evaluated in the round.

8) Follow this paradigm. If you can't spend the 3 min it takes to read this and adjust then you deserve to lose.

Tina Yao Hire

Last changed on Wed April 22, 2020 at 5:54 PM EDT

hi!

ok so i did parli for 3 yrs and pf for 2 and some of the bigger (biggest? idk) cons of the comps i've competed in were judges who didn't rly understand debate so... i'm hoping that i can prob b a little more fair/helpful. if its gonna b a meme round just lmk i'm down. also send me speech docs pls

tldr; flay judge. strong evidence plS, theory not necessary (i flow), and squirrely arguments can’t b just average should b impressive; follow the pf rules; don't attack ppl/b a jerk; truth>tech but i wont intervene unless abs. necessary, pls nothing new in second focus k thx; i’m a parli soul but i understand this is pf debate and i will b as tech as i can

→ DONT forge/make up evidence!!! can't believe i have to say this but some people rly do and it's just not fair to the people that spent time to actually research. i wiLL call u out

→ strong evidence is big yes, i appreciate GOOD mind tricks/witty or twisty word play but they have to be both clever and well supported. don't make up or assume facts and say it's common sense.

→ analysis/refutation pls emphasize these r v important. arguments should make sense (again if it's gonna be wack pls have stronggg evidence to back it up or it's not quirky it's just weak) and should be stated clearly at least once before building

→ weighing is necessary. fr. if u dont weigh, don't expect to win.

→ speed is fine, practice moderation. i get that pf can be v technical, but speaking super fast isn’t gonna score u all the points. I’ll time but i encourage u to time too. i will listen to cross but if it’s important u should bring it up again. also pls just b polite, talking over other ppl/interrupting/cutting someone off is not cute

→ solo players/mavs. are valid and i will be lenient with prep time

→ i will judge as fairly as possible and give feedback on the round afterwards and also individual feedback if desired/requested. If i rly missed smthing then u can bring it up, but don’t argue with/harass me after the round debate is not personal

→ if u r personally homophobic, racist, sexist, a neo-nazi, or xenophobic and u display that during the round i wiLL drop u. if u rly feel that way just keep it to urself :)

Angela Yi Hire

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 8:19 PM EDT

hi, i'm AJ! i graduated from Plano West in 2021 and competed in PF on the national circuit. my pronouns are they/them, and my email is ayi@college.harvard.edu.

- priority #1 is safety; be cognizant of your presence in the round/community, don’t be a problematic human being, use correct pronouns, provide content warnings with opt outs, etc.

- would strongly prefer if y’all came in preflowed and coin flipped/ready to go!

- outside of that, do whatever makes the debate enjoyable :) below are my preferences that might make it easier for you to win, but really do whatever you like. if you are compelling and/or justify decisions against my preferences below, you will likely be okay!

things i like in debate / things to know about me as a judge:

- i think about debate pretty similarly to renee li, alyssa nie, and aditya kumar.

- i'm quite expressive in response to what y'all say (though i also just nod/furrow my eyebrows in confusion a lot). i don’t like most pf arguments and still vote off of them so don’t be intimidated! but feel free to use my facial cues as you see fit.

- please prioritize warrants throughout the round, do not be blippy with them, and have clear extensions of your entire link chain and impact in the second half for anything you want me to vote on (including turns). any offense i vote on must be extended clearly in both summary and final focus and include good warranting.

- please collapse as much as possible. i really like smart analytics and strategic decisions, much more than blippy, unintelligent dumps of as much as you can possibly get through.

- new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such

- you don't need to frontline defense in 2nd rebuttal, but whatever you don't fl can be extended straight into 1st ff. i think it probably makes for a more in depth debate if you fl defense and collapse in 2nd rebuttal, but it's up to you.

- on weighing: being comparative between the actual nuanced arguments on the flow (as opposed to the general idea of an argument i.e. climate change) when weighing or responding is really really important to me. i am not too impressed with the meta of broad prereq weighing that doesn’t actually make sense when considering your link chain’s effect on the impact.

- that said, please weigh, and please start it by summary!

- dislike: doc botting, blowing up blips in final, independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal, excessively unclear speed, overgeneralizations of arguments or of the squo, jargon (define terms if absolutely necessary) being called judge, friv theory (unless its actually funny)

- don’t really care about: crossfire (feel free to take 1.5 min of prep instead of gcx), author names (just cite stuff consistently), most presentation things (sit/stand/whatever you’d like)

- super down to give as detailed feedback as y'all want, but i know thats not always what anyone wants to listen to immediately after an rfd. so i'll default to giving just the rfd - if you want advice beyond that ask me after round/message me. also please reach out even if you just want to talk about debate/hs/life! AJ Yi on FB, @aj__yi on Insta

Allen Zhang Hire

Last changed on Wed April 22, 2020 at 8:48 AM CDT

General Information about me:

I was a former Public Forum Debater and I also have some experience in LD.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose. Be ready to get roasted in my RFD. I will not tolerate any rudeness or ANYTHING that would not be said in school. I will not allow either side time before the start of the debate to preflow. This is no different than saying "I need some time to cut more cards for my aff/neg". This is something that should be done before you get to the tournament let alone before the debate is scheduled to start.

If there are ANY Questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Public Forum

Round:

I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
Never extend through ink. Every time you do, I dock half a speak.
Any Terminal Offense or Defense must be in Summary and Final Focus for me to evaluate it.
The 2nd Rebuttal must defend against the 1st rebuttal. It is unfair if you do not.
It is abusive to have Offensive Overviews in the 2nd rebuttal, I will not flow it.
I want a Road map for every speech after summary. Make sure you plan it out. Don't just say "I will sign post you", that for me is the same as "I don't know what I'm going to say". I expect you to signpost throughout your speech.

Arguments:

I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive do it right. Extend the narrative starting from case across every single speech.
If you decide to run a Kritiks, do not run non-topical Ks except if it is a Language K.
Framework is not needed in Public Forum, but if you read framework, that will be the 1st thing I will vote off.
If you run tricks, see what happens (don't blame me if you drop)

Delivery:

When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
I do not flow CX, bring it up in your next speech if you want it flowed. I will not tolerate rudeness in Cross Fire. Also, please do not make it a yelling match.
If you are going to talk at a speed that is not applicable to a Lay Judge, you better disclose.

Lincoln Douglass

Round:

I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will not go well for you.
Never extend through ink.
Road Maps are a must please.
If you are going to spread please disclose. I am not that used to spreading

Arguments:

I prefer traditional LD, but that said, everyone will go progressive either way so.

K: I do not prefer Ks and will most likely not vote off it. That being said, if you decide to run a K, please make it relevant in round.
Topicality: Topicality is great. I want good standards if you want me to vote off a T shell. I don't really like RVI on T. Being topical is very important to debate to me.
Framework: This is where you want to win for me. This will always be the 1st place I will vote.
Theory: I think theory is a good way to check abuse, nothing else. If you run theory for something I do not feel is abusive, I will not evaluate it.
CP: Counterplans are good. If you are winning the CP, don't be afraid to go for it. This is the 2nd place where I could vote for Neg.

Delivery:

Don't sacrifice speed for clarity.
Make a distinctive speed difference with Tags and Cards.
Disclosing to me is the best option, if you are not clear, I will not evaluate the argument and I will lower your speaker points. If you decide to not disclose, the Tags MUST be clear

If you have any further questions email me at zhangallen05@gmail.com

Clark Zhang Hire

Last changed on Fri April 24, 2020 at 6:27 PM EDT

Last updated: April 22, 2020 for Plastic TOC

Questions? Speech Docs? Email: clarlczz143@gmail.com

Update after Day 1 of the Plastic TOC: I'm bored of substance. 2 implications:

1. Run some progressive stuff. However, if you are not comfortable with it, by all means, let's talk some more mish-mash about Maduro. If you run it, at least understand it enough to be able to win a round on it. I like good progressive debates, not ones that make me cringe in my seat.

2. Me telling you to run progressive arguments =/= raid the backfiles. I've seen theory shells and K's that can be read at <= 200 WPM.

3. Paraphrasing and disclosure theory are often applicable in PF, but also many frivolous theory shells are also applicable and something I always did in LD. Saying that "Debaters must change their profile picture to one of Jack Johnson holding his timer up" and the standard is "Learning to tell mom its time for my juice box" is funny, unique, and always welcome.

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

5 Minutes before the round

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

On a scale from 1-5 on familiarity:

LD prefs: (1) Topical Affs; (1) LARP; (2) Phil; (3) Kritiks; (4) High Theory; (1) Theory/T; (2-4) Tricks

PF prefs: Given how these args are run in PF, generally nothing I haven't seen before is happening in each of those above categories so I can evaluate it pretty well. Prolly a (1-2) in your book.

What I need from you to judge well:

-SLOW DOWN FOR IMPORTANT THINGS: I can flow pretty fast but I can't catch all those short analytics at high speed, especially on interpretations, tags, author names, years, or plan texts. If I don't understand you the first time I hear the argument, I won't evaluate it. Furthermore, If I say slow/clear, it means I already missed a couple arguments

-WEIGH: If both teams get offense but no one weighs, I will default to presumption (defaults: 1st speaking in PF, Aff in LD). Compare between warrants, impacts, internal links.

-OVERVIEWS: Give overviews at the top of your speeches show me how the round breaks down, the big picture, why are you winning. In PF, debaters love saying "overview on their case" and proceed to read generic responses to case. Don't. Read those responses on case and crystallize the round in the overview

Other preferences:

-Saying "extend case/[card name]/argument" or anything like the sort on conceded arguments is enough extending. If there were responses made, extend the warrant as well.

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

If you have the time, here is some more

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

Experience

I debate on Montgomery Blair High School. I have 3 years of LD and 2 years of PF experience, going into my 3rd PF year. Qualled to TOC this year.

I read mostly LARP, but also a lot of Kant and Scanlon, Levinas, frivilous theory, and disclosure theory every time it applied.

How I judge

I take the path of least intervention. By the end of the round, I will go through the flow and craft a ballot for both teams. Whichever ballot requires the least amount of intervention is the one that reflects my decision. This means that doing embedded clash between different flows are very helpful.

With that said, there are two types of intervention that are common (see full explanation on Bob Overing's paradigm):

Interpretive Intervention:

-This "refers to a judge’s need to use background knowledge for clarification". Filling in the gaps in your acronyms or rhetoric with my own understanding is necessary if you do not to the explanation (e.g. RVI probably means Reverse Voting Issue). This also goes the other way as well. If a debater uses the wrong jargon, but I understand the argument, I won't hold that against you.

Evaluative Interpretation:

Bob says: "Evaluative intervention refers to a judge’s need to compare argument quality to reach a conclusion". I disagree. As I said above, if both teams get offense but no one weighs, I will default to presumption (defaults: 1st speaking in PF, Aff in LD).

How to read the rest of this paradigm

Likes/dislikes: These are not defaults or mandates: These will not affect how I judge because I take the path of least intervention. These are listed because [a] they are valuable for better rounds [b] judge adaptation affects your speaks

Defaults: These are not mandates. They are what I will default to absent any compelling/obvious argumentation on the contrary. For example, "Fairness is not a voter" by itself is not a reason for me to shift from my default. If you provide a warrant like, "there are always instances of abuse in a round so it is impossible to correct them all", would cause me to shift from my default.

Strong Views:

-Tournament rules(e.g. speech times, prep time). No matter how convincing your Delueze K is, I am not gonna give you a 10 minute rebuttal. That said, going over time by 5 seconds is not a reason to drop you.

-Prep time ends when you save your speech doc

-Make all the evidence you read accessible to your opponents. Full text disclosure is a great practice, as well as not paraphrasing. If that isn't possible, flashing case if asked is good, too

-I will stop the round if any instances where the safety of debaters in the room is compromised. Do not make blatantly discriminatory arguments or not providing a content warning for a sensitive topic.

Strategy

Likes----------

-Basic strategy: diminishing marginal return, term-setting, pre-emption, misdirection

-establishing multiple routes to the ballot early on (and should be made clear in an overview)

Dislikes----------

-Solely relying on dropped responses

-Poor time allocation. In PF, if you have a good 2,2 split in 2nd rebuttal, thats sexy

Crossfire

Crossfire is binding

I am listening pretty hard, but not flowing. Generally, when you say "my opponents conceded in crossfire blah blah blah", I remember what the blah is.

Evidence

I can put it no better than David Kinane:

"Analysis is a perfectly fine replacement for under-warranted or maybe even miscut evidence that is analyzing something or making a predictive claim. I truly think debaters care too much about evidence, and one of the only differences between a debater making an argument and an author making an argument is that the author was able to afford to gain arbitrary qualifications. If you expect me to drop a debater for miscut evidence, read theory."

Topical Contentions/LARP

Likes----------

-Plastic TOC: I debated this topic so Unique args are a big Like

-Unique args that are from unexpected parts of the topic

-Very timely Politics DAs

-Advantage counterplans

-IMPACT TURNS

-meta weighing

-Conditional counter plans

-Multiple contentions

Dislikes----------

-Actor counterplans

-Monocontentions

Phil

Likes----------

-Frameworks that actually exclude offense. Xavier Roberts-Gaal said it best: "I’m always a little bit confused when debaters spend time justifying an elaborate framework, when the framework doesn’t exclude any sort of turn."

-Weighing offense on the opposing framework

-A clear value criterion

Dislikes----------

-Theoretically justified frameworks

-Using presumption as the strategy

-Using jargon without explaining it

Defaults----------

-Epistemic confidence

Kritiks

Likes----------

-Specific links to the AC

-High theory is a big like (not pessimism arg, those are a definite dislike) e.g. Baudrillard or smth idk much high theory. If you read this, really explain it to me and def send me a speech doc because I am gonna learn it after round

Dislikes----------

-Using jargon without explaining it

-Discourse ROBs: As Aminesh Joshi put it, "It is no longer edgy to break debate"

-Floating PIKs: def abusive but we have theory for that

-Exclusive ROBs made to exclude the other team

Theory/T

Likes----------

-Specific offense that is beyond those backfiles. In particular, paraphrasing theory is still very much in development, so new arguments are always interesting to see affect the PF norm.

-Giving me an explanation of what the topical version of the aff would look like

-Paraphrasing/Disclosure theory

-Theory that takes out tricks, spikes, or Scarsdales stupid burden affs

-Theory against pre-fiat offense

-Saying "Counterinterp: I defend the violation" to save time

-Creative counter interps

-Meta theory

-Gut check reasonability: use it at your own risk. Remember that my tolerance for abuse it pretty high because abuse makes for funny debate rounds

-Performative contradiction to the interp

-Multiple violations

-drop the argument as part of the strategy

-Combo shells that actually use those different abuse stories to generate specific offense

-Going for weighing like K vs T, or Substance vs Theory

-Very specifc interps e.g. "...must disclose on the NDCA PF wiki...on the 2020 NSDA January topic..."

-Reading independent voters e.g. prep time is an indepedent voter because it affects how much research debaters must do and therefore how much sleep they get

-Text of the interp i-meets e.g. I am an advocator, not a debater

Dislikes----------

-PFers, hey, yeah, I'm talking to you. If you run theory and it made me cringe in my seat (and I visibly cringe), don't expect your speaks to be amazing. If you run this, please run it well.

-Using I/we in order to beat back the shell. No one can verify what you did unless there are recordings or screenshots. Theory is a purely logical game, so use logic, not appeals to my emotion.

-Paragraph theory. If you run theory, make sure your opponents can also sufficiently respond.

-Spec shells

-Brackets theory

-Grey text theory

-Norm-setting arguments

Defaults----------

-No need to extend conceded paradigm issues, the interpretation, or the violation.

-No RVI

-Drop the argument

-Spirit of the interp

-Fairness is a voter; education is a voter

-Competing interps, although I like reasonability. Read a CI just in case

Tricks

Likes----------

-Innovative, intelligent, nuanced a prioris

Dislikes----------

-Most of the rest of it because they are recycled in backfiles

Login to Tabroom

Plastic TOC PF Invitational ONLINE

2020 — Discord, KY/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges