Tabroom.com

The Tab N Dab Invitational

2020 — Discord, CA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aarya Aluri Hire

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:30 AM CDT

Hey y'all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

Varnum Bayless Hire

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 8:26 PM EDT

Former PF Debater, now graduated!

*UPDATE FOR JUDGING WACFL LD*

I debated LD once or twice, but am not that familiar with the event. Still, many of the shifts towards progressive debate in PF drew from styles like LD and Policy, so I expect I will have more experience/understanding than a lay judge.

In general, speed is fine and progressive arguments are fine but EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS. That is the most reliable way you can win my ballot.

Good luck and have fun!

**UPDATE FOR JUDGING WACFL POLICY*

I'm familiar with a number of policy terms, but the dumbed-down, PF versions of them. For your purposes, consider me a flay judge - I will be flowing, but the arguments that will likely resonate most with me will be specific, evidence-based ones as opposed to the more esoteric and abstract ideas that can be common in policy.

This is not to say those arguments can't win - I make an effort to be as tabula rosa as possible! But in order for that to happen, explain your points well. Good luck and have fun!

P.S. - make a reference to League of Legends and I'll give bonus speaker points

Add me to the chain. Email: baylessv2@gmail.com

TLDR:

Tech>Truth. Debate is a game, not an educational event. Play it as such.
Weigh, and if your opponent does the same, meta-weigh.
I am as tabula rosa as possible, so if the argument is made that the sky is red, the sky is red.
Theory is cool, K’s are cool, but no CP or tricks.
Any sexist, racist, xenophobic, or any other form of offensive comments being made will result in a drop.

Let’s get into it.

Evidence: Probably pretty standard stuff here. I will read any card a debater asks me to, but I won’t unless specifically asked. If your opponent successfully calls you out for misconstruing cards, don’t be surprised if I dock speaks. This includes bad paraphrasing.

Also, I’m stealing this from another paradigm: Carded evidence with warranting >Analytic with warranting > Cards but no warranting > Analytic but no warranting

Speed: I’m fine with it. I’ve spread before. That being said, a few preferences. If you are going to spread, ask your opponents if they are ok with it. If they aren’t, please don’t. Furthermore, a speech doc is expected when spreading.

Don’t rely on card dumps to save you, either. If you read 12 cards but give no warranting on any of them, then your opponent can probably read just one card with warranting and I’ll buy it.

Overviews: I’ve seen a lot of paradigms of people who say that offensive overviews, especially in 2R, are frowned upon. I agree. However, defensive overviews are fine.

Speaks: I start at 27.5, and will probably only move up. I’m sympathetic to 30 speaks theory, and if it’s extended through every speech of either team, I’ll give it to everyone. That being said, I view it as setting the standard at 30, so if you end up with a 29.9, you messed up.

Moving onto speeches…

Case: Meh. Do whatever. Read trigger warnings if necessary.

Cross: Doesn’t matter to me. Bonus speaks if it’s entertaining. While it’s fine to be aggressive, there is a fine line between pressing your opponent and being a jerk. Don’t cross that line. Also, I’m starting to see more teams tag in during cross. That’s cool. Just ask your opponents if they’re alright with it.

If you make a response here that you like, mention it in a speech. Otherwise, it’s not going on the flow.

1R: Signpost! This speech is one of my favorites to give as a debater, so I expect it to be good. Line by line is preferable, but I understand that typically that isn’t possible, so broad responses to the generalized points being made are fine. Also, I like to see weighing start here. You have 4 minutes and don’t have to frontline - be strategic with that time.

2R: Signpost! (This is a theme in my paradigm). A few things important to note. Firstly, you need to frontline here. Any defense not responded to is conceded. I personally like collapsing, but if you don’t, more power to you. Weighing isn’t necessary, but if the first speaking team goes for it, you probably should respond.

1S: Defense is not sticky. If they concede it in 2R, extend it or it’s dropped. Frontline responses, and similarly to 2R, I like to see collapsing, but it is not necessary. Extensions should begin here, but I am less strict than many judges in this regard. Generally, if a card has been warranted in either case or 1R, and the warranting wasn’t challenged, just extend the card and maybe a quick summary. You don’t need to extend warranting, but feel free to if you so wish. Weigh if you haven’t please.

2S: Weigh, especially if you haven’t. Similarly to the 1S, if you made a response that was dropped, extend it or I drop. Warranting extension isn’t necessary unless it’s been challenged. If you get through this speech and haven’t weighed, you better be winning on the flow overwhelmingly.

FF: Grouping because preferences are the same. I like when the final focuses go down the flow. Not a big fan of grouping voters. I am a strong believer in parallelism - if it wasn’t in summary, I don’t want it here. New arguments will be dropped, and if it’s egregious, speaks will be docked. This speech should be about crystallization and weighing first and foremost.

Theory: I’m down with it. Go crazy. I will evaluate frivolous theory, and will grant wins off of it, but I don’t like it. I’m of the opinion that unless you are absolutely certain that your standards and interpretations improve debate, you shouldn’t run theory, so I lean towards being more charitable to theory made on the fly, but I will evaluate pre-written theory fairly.

Furthermore, theory will default to taking precedence to substance. Fiat is illusory, structural improvements to debate are more important than illusory cases - however, I am not dead set on this view, and if a team convinces me that substance should take precedence, I’ll judge with that view.

Finally, for disclosure specifically, I am a big fan of disclosure. If someone runs disclosure against a team that has something like, ‘we’ll disclose 20 minutes before round if asked’, I am of the opinion they are fully in their rights to do so, and simply pointing out the aforementioned fact will not get them out of the shell.

(P.S.: You can run theory against novices, but don’t be a jerk. I will dock speaks.)

K’s: Admittedly, I’m not the most experienced with them, but I will vote for them. Just make sure the link chain is solid and the K is actually implicated. Do not run an identity K if you are not a member of that identity. Similarly to theory, you can run K’s against novices, but be considerate.

Counter Plans: Due to the way PF works, counter plans are typically super abusive. The evidence that pertains to them is typically hyper-specific, and it can be virtually impossible for the opposing team to engage with this on the same level as other unorthodox arguments. Don’t run these.

Tricks: No.

Concluding thoughts…

Debate is a game. Rounds should be, first and foremost, fun. Make the round entertaining!

I have no issue with postrounding. If you’re able to prove I missed something significant in my RFD, I don’t think I’ll change my ballot but I’ll probably award you 30 speaks.

That’s about it. If you have any questions, ask me!

Bryan Benitez Hire

Martand Bhagavatula Hire

Shabbir Bohri Hire 8 rounds

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.

Lucas Bowerman Hire

Last changed on Fri March 4, 2022 at 3:10 AM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

Please read trigger warnings.

I don’t care what you wear.

Time yourself please.

Speed:

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

Speaker Points:

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

Round Strategy:

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

Cross:

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

Progressive Argumentation:

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

Evidence/Evaluation:

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

Signpost and Roadmap please.

I presume neg

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

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)

Sedrick Brown Hire

Last changed on Fri November 10, 2023 at 9:44 AM EDT

Background:

Sedrick Brown

Email: sbrown3@unc.edu

I am a junior at UNC-Chapel Hill studying Public Policy and Economic. For all four of my years in high school, I debated for Massey Hill Classical High in Fayetteville, NC. I did PF for almost 2 years, and LD for another 2.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

1. Anything said that is inherently racist, homophobic, sexist, etc will result in an instant loss. As a person of color, I believe that debate should be a safe space for everyone, and I refuse to tolerate any discriminatory behavior. Period.

2. I will not vote for you if whatever argument you are going for (link and impact) is not fully extended in summary. Frontlining is not extending. If neither side is properly extending then I'll intervene

3. I'm a flow judge. Anything above 300 wpm is too fast, and I won't get it down (which will probably not bode well for you).

4. I vote off the weighing debate first. whoever wins the weighing debate tends to win the round. If there is no weighing or the weighing is a wash, i vote for the cleanest piece of offense. If there is no offense, i presume first speaking team. If you want me to presume differently, tell me why.

Other Stuff:

1. Please collapse in Summary and Final Focus, it makes judging much easier. Collapsing strategically will boost your speaks. Don't go for everything.

2. Please weigh, and start as early in the round as you can. In the scenario that both teams weigh, I would like some sort of metaweighing or comparative analysis between both weighing mechanisms.

3. The second rebuttal should frontline, it doesn't have to be a 2/2 split, but I want to see some interaction with the first rebuttal. I believe this makes for a better debate. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal, I will consider them dropped and evaluate them as such.

4. Will generally be tech > truth, but within reason. You can not get away with a blatantly false argument.

5. Make sure you terminalize your impacts in both summary and final focus, otherwise I don't know why I am voting for you.

6. I will evaluate prefiat arguments like theory or Ks. I have a higher threshold for explanations and general warranting for such arguments not because I don't like them but simply because I have relatively less experience with them. That said, I'm pretty confident evaluating progressive argumentation - more theory than Ks but I can handle either. If you explain the argument well, I'll vote for it, just slow down and be a bit more thorough with these kinds of progressive arguments.

Speaker Points

- Be as funny/savage in crossfire as you want (More entertainment = Higher Speaks)

Albert Chu Hire

Danielle Davenport Freehold Township 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.

Cyprian Dumas Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 17, 2023 at 5:46 PM CDT

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

Reagan Robert Fournier Hire

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Prologue - Nuts and Bolts of My Judging

Have fun and learn something! Don't let a single bad debate round ruin your whole career (or even your weekend).

Hi! I'm Rae (they/them).I'm fine if you call me "Judge," "Rae," or "Mx. Fournier." I don't know why you'd call me anything else.

I'm fine with email chains if that's what you're most comfortable with. If you have problems where you "forget" to hit reply all or emails get magically "lost" in the ether, let's use speechdrop instead. Here is my email if not: reaganfbusiness@gmail.com If you have questions before or after the round you can email me as well.

Experience:

Charles J. Colgan High School (2018-2022) - I debated at Colgan for 4 years in PF, and Policy, LD, and Congress for my senior year. I debated the water topic my senior year in policy, but I honestly did such little research I don't know if it matters that much.

Western Kentucky University (2022-Present) - I'm in my second year of debating at WKU, where I do NFA-LD and am planning on switching to primarily compete in NDT-CEDA next year. For what it is worth, I won the 2024 NFA-LD Grand Prix National Tournament.

Do not run arguments about death being good in front of me. Do not read explicit material surrounding sexual assault in front of me. You will be dropped and given the lowest speaker points possible if you do this, and I will also probably talk with your coach. I am fine with non-graphic depictions of SA given a content warning.

If there is a problem with your opponent's evidence (ethical or otherwise), please bring it to them before you bring it to me.

If I think you're in the top 50% of the pool, you should get a 28.5 or above for speaker points. I don't try to make an exact science out of speaker points, because I don't think most judges follow those little charts they make. A lot of it is based on the context of the round and the tournament. You will be closer to the mean if you are in novice or JV because I struggle to identify who is at the top of the pack of these divisions, purely out of my own inexperience.

I've voted aff 38/64 (~59%) of the time. I attribute this more to a small sample size than a strong aff bias, especially considering that I've judged many different kinds of debate at several levels. You might think I have a disposition towards the aff based on this paradigm, but I think I have a disposition against the way negs try to engage in many instances. I’ve tried to be transparent about my prejudices to boost your chances of victory.

Try to keep your own time. I start time when you start talking, and I stop flowing after your time runs out, and will call it shortly after. Not making me do that is really cool too, though.

Number your arguments! It makes things easier for you and for me. In that same vein, slow down on tags and analytics (esp. If they weren’t in the doc). Sidenote: Numbers organize arguments, they aren't replacements for arguments. If your 2AC on case sounds like a calculator spitting digits at me then I'm going to stop flowing and be visibly miffed.

I’m fine with you “inserting” evidence if it is just for my visual reference, but if you want me to flow it as anything other than an analytic, you should be reading it because debate is an oral activity.

I am not a very fast flower, and I will clear you twice before I stop flowing entirely and give you the fluoride stare. In general I am going to signal to you whether or not I like an argument via facial expressions and body language, which is largely out of my control. It would do you good, then, to look at me when you’re giving a speech.

Something I have seen that bothers me - you cannot strongarm me into voting for you. Calling me “stupid” if I don’t vote for a DA (something that has happened on the circuit I compete on) is a surefire way to cap your speaker points at 27.5, even if you win. The core of debate is persuasion, and I cannot think of a less persuasive strategy than yelling at me, threatening me, accosting me based on a decision I haven’t made yet, etc.

I update my paradigm a lot. This is because I’m learning a lot about debate after being a (mostly) lay PF debater in high school. This also has the fringe benefit of making me understand my own positions better, and scratch out takes that end up being not very sound.

Chapter 1 - My General Debate Philosophy

I like debates that include affs who read a topical plan, negs who read arguments about the plan (excluding process counterplans that do the aff, Ks that don't rejoin the aff, bad theory arguments like ASPEC, etc.), and debaters who cut a lot of cards and do not run from engagement. Still, I will try to fairly evaluate debates I don’t like.

I think death is bad because suffering is bad and because life is good, thus extinction is bad. It is difficult to persuade me that any of the things stated in the previous sentence are wrong.

I don’t like arbitrarily excluding arguments based on content alone (sans the above warning in bolded letters, but that is strictly for personal reasons, and if reading “death good” is something you have to do every round for some reason, you should strike me regardless). Assertions that an argument is “problematic,” “science-fiction,” or “stupid” are unlikely to convince me to vote for you absent an explanation. Although, the bar for explanation becomes lower the worse the argument is. If you would describe your argumentative preferences as “trolling,” “memes,” “tricks,” or anything in that region - I am a bad judge for you, as your opponent will have comparatively little work to do to defeat you.

As an extension to this, if I feel neither side has explained their case sufficiently, I'll default to card quality / reading the cards. If you don't want this to happen, explain your argument.

You should assume I know nothing about the topic, and debate accordingly. I’m a big dumb idiot who needs everything (especially acronyms if it is a very technical topic) explained to me. This, in my opinion, will not only improve your explanation and avoid making your speeches a jargon salad, but is also probably the best way to approach having me as your judge, given that I do very little topic research for high school resolutions (if any).

Try or die framing is very intuitive to me, and it should guide many late rebuttals where the neg is going for a disad. It is hard for me to vote neg if the aff has definitively won that the status quo causes extinction, and there is a risk that voting aff can stop that extinction scenario. Negs should mitigate this through 1) in-depth weighing and turns case analysis and 2) impact defense.

Chapter 2 - Affs

I read up the gut, very topical affs in my own debating, and this is what I prefer to see debates about. I generally prefer big stick to soft left because I find the strategy of calling link chains fake to be generally unpersuasive, but I do not have any strong preferences here. I have also found some soft left affs to be frankly overpowered due to how true they are and to how little disads seem to link to them.

I think T/FW is true, but I by no means automatically vote neg in these debates. I think K teams have figured out ways to put a lot of ink out on the flow in addition to being more persuasive. However, I think that under closer examination, a lot of the arguments that these teams make are either (a) wrong or (b) misunderstanding the neg's argument. For instance, I find the claim that an unlimited topic is good because it gives more ground to the neg is facetious and is a blatant misrepresentation of the way neg prep happens.

Here’s how I prefer the traditional impacts to FW: Clash>Fairness>Skills

I don't know if fairness is an impact - but I think I'm more easily persuaded that it is than many other judges. I think the usual 2AC strategy of just saying “it’s an internal link” is insufficient given how much explanation FW debaters tend to give in the 2NC/1NR. I also think the aff probably relies on fairness as a value in the abstract as much as the neg does - else they would concede the round to have a much more educational conversation on the aff.

Clash as an abstract value, i.e., that it makes us better people by allowing us to come to new convictions about the world, seems extremely true. In my own personal debating career, deep debates over a singular resolution have allowed me to come to a very nuanced understanding about the topic. I think there’s also empirical research which backs this up, but I can’t remember the study.

I’m also fine with skills, especially since it’s frequently the more strategic option. I don’t know if it’s true that debate makes people advocates (it definitely gives them the tools to become better advocates, but I don’t know if there’s an actual correlation there). It also isn’t apparent to me that becoming an advocate is something that is something which can be exclusively achieved through plan-focus debate. A normative reason why debating the resolution you’ve been instructed to debate would be helpful for convincing me of this argument (e.g., learning about immigration policy is good to become an immigration lawyer and help people who are persecuted by ICE).

There are other impacts to FW, of course, but I’d like more explanation for these if you’re going to go for them in the 2NR, as I will be less familiar with them.

If you are for sure reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here's what you can do to improve your odds:

I need a strong reason in the 2AC as to why switch-side debate doesn’t solve all your offense.
I prefer a well-thought out counter interpretation to impact turning limits.
A functional critique of the resolution which mitigates the limits DA (if applicable)

If you're reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here are some things that will not improve your odds:

"Karl Rove, Ted Cruz, etc."
Saying predictability is bad when you make debates incredibly predictable for yourself
Saying that FW is intrinsically violent

Chapter 3 - Topicality (Not Framework)

Love it! I think that learning the difference in legal terms is incredibly valuable for topic education, and learning how to navigate those differences is a potent portable skill.

I think I'm better for reasonability than most judges. It doesn’t mean (despite popular explanations) that the aff is reasonable, but that their counter interpretation creates a reasonable limit for debate. Yes, this requires some judge intervention, but it is likely I will have to intervene anyways in T debates due to the fact that I don’t know what the topic (that I have done zero research on) should look like anyways.

Yet I still find myself persuaded by the neg in many debates on topicality. The aff frequently lacks explanation for what their version of the topic looks like, which makes it difficult to endorse it. Aff teams would do good by explaining what affs are topical under their interpretation, what kind of debates that invites, and why those debates are good.

Although I think in principle “T Substantial” having a quantitative definition is nonsensical absent a field-contextual definition, I find myself increasingly persuaded by negative pushes on this question. The argument that the resolution includes the word “substantial” for a reason, and that quantitative barriers are the only way to make the word matter, for instance, is compelling - especially if the aff meets a particularly low threshold of reductions/expansions (i.e., an aff that expands social security by 0.02% is probably not substantial).

Topicality is never an RVI. Don’t bother reading them.

Chapter 4 - Non-T Theory

SLOW DOWN ON THEORY PAGES-- I cannot flow as fast as you can talk. I get that you don't want to spend a lot of time on "New Affs Bad," but if I have nothing legible on my flow then if the neg goes for it, you're kind of toast!

I find the debate community’s shift towards counterplans which do the aff to be unfortunate. As a result, I am generally slightly more aff leaning on counterplan theory than some of my peers. However, I think the only reason I would reject the team absent a strong, warranted push by the aff is conditionality.

Condo-- I think 2 condo is acceptable in NFA-LD, maybe 3 in policy if the topic is really aff biased. I generally think the neg should be more argumentatively responsible than what the status quo is in progressive debate. Kicking planks and 2NC counterplans are suspicious but aren't unwinnable. This is an opinion that gets me a lot of heat, and I understand that there is an argument to be made for infinite conditionality, but I simply don’t know why 2-3 condo isn’t enough for the negative. It seems to me that the quality of debates goes drastically down, with less engagement and more late-breaking arguments as the number of conditional positions goes up. This is magnified by counterplans with no solvency advocates or counterplans that do the aff.

50 State Fiat Bad-- I think this is way more viable than most people think, as the aff is usually right that there’s no lit on universal 50 state action. The neg articulating that states v fed is the core of the topic and that the CP is uniform probably solves a lot of this offense, though.

International Fiat Bad-- I'm confused as to what the academic benefit of being able to fiat multiple, non-USFG actors is. Especially on international topics, being able to fiat that Russia, for instance, ends the war in Ukraine breaks the game.

Disclosure-- I will steal what Justin Kirk says about disclosure because I agree with it 100%: "While I am not an ideologue, I am a pedagogue. If you fail to disclose information about your affirmative or negative arguments on the wiki and then make a peep about education or engagement or clash in the debate, you better damn well hope your opponent does not mention it. Its about as close to a priori as I will get on an issue. If your argument is so good, what is the matter with a well prepared opponent? Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. If your opponent's wiki is empty, and you make a cogent argument about why disclosure is key to education and skill development, you will receive high marks and probably a ballot from me."

These are the big ones I have feelings on. I hate the trend in high school LD where people read frivolous theory/trix, I’m not persuaded by it, and you’d be better off reading substantive arguments. Speaking more on trix, please don't read them if I am your judge. I am bad for them. If there is something you have a specific question about, feel free to ask me if I didn’t list it here.

Chapter 5 - Counterplans

I obviously have big feelings about process counterplans. Functional and textual competition is probably a good standard, though objections to textual competition also seem legitimate. I'm not too familiar with deep competition debates, so slowing down if this is going to be a big part of your strategy is a good call in front of me.

I'm honestly not very familiar with 2NC counterplans strategically speaking - heads up. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but be slower when explaining why you get them if contested.

I am not a huge fan of uniqueness counterplans, though part of this could also be due to my inexperience in judging and hitting them in my own debate career.

Sufficiency framing seems intuitive to me, therefore affs should try to impact out their solvency deficits to the counterplan rather than sneezing a bunch of arguments in the 2AC and hoping the block drops something (I once judged a round where the 2AC read like, 12 solvency deficits which, from my perspective, all made no difference on whether or not the counterplan was sufficient to solve the case). If I have to ask at the end of the 2AC on the CP, “so what?” you have failed to convince me.

I will never vote on a counterplan that had no evidence attached to it when it was first read UNLESS that counterplan uses 1AC ev to solve it (i.e., if the aff's advantages aren't intrinsic). An example of this would be in the NFA-LD Democracy Topic (2022-23), where everyone read affs that said that we should ban a certain interest group from lobbying (ex. the pharmaceutical lobby) and then read advantages about how good medicare for all/price caps for drugs would be. These affs got solved 100% by reading an analytic counterplan that just passed these policies. Even if you are doing this, you should be inserting a piece of 1AC ev or justifying it analytically. I think a good standard is that you need to have solvency evidence that is on-par quality wise with the 1AC.

Chapter 6 - Ks

I am not well-read in most K literature, I’ll be honest. Explain things slowly, and try not to use your favorite $100 word every other word in a sentence.

Some would describe me as an aff framework + extinction outweighs hack. I think if debated evenly against most Ks, I do lean aff on this (especially framework), but I'm definitely not opposed to alternative forms of impact calculus and frameworks.

I don’t like how many judges just refuse to evaluate framework debates and arbitrarily pick a middle ground - this harms both teams as it arbitrarily has the judge insert themselves into the late rebuttals which is completely unpredictable and not reflective of the debate that happened. I will pick either the aff interp or the neg interp, and make my decision accordingly.

I prefer links that critique the impacts or implementation of the plan. I do not like links whose only win condition is mooting the entire 1ac post-hoc, because a representation of the aff is the plan text.

If you’re a K debater, this all might seem a bit daunting. I admit, I do have a bias towards the policy side of the spectrum. However, superior evidence, technical debating, and explanation can overcome every bias I have presented to you. I promise that if I am in the back of the room, I will try to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible.

Epilogue - Weird things that didn’t fit anywhere and I think make my preferences unique

I do not care nearly as much if you reference my paradigm compared to other judges who "cringe" when you make clear that you care about adaptation. I've judged so many rounds where it is evident one (or both) teams decided to completely ignore the fact that I am the one who is in the back of the room. Referencing my paradigm is not only a signal that you've read it, but I believe that a paradigm is a contract that I have signed that indicates how I will vote.

Open CX is fine, don't be obnoxious though. 2Ns and 2As, please let your partner ask and answer questions I'm begging you. (Especially 2Ns, though). Policy debate is a team activity, and part of working in a group is trusting other people. Talking over your partner destroys your credibility.

In and outs are fine - never judged one of these but I truly don’t care as long as both debaters give one constructive and one rebuttal each.

Jonah Goldman Hire

Last changed on Wed April 14, 2021 at 10:19 AM EDT

Email for chain/questions: jonahlg20@gmail.com - if we can skip GCX and start the round asap, +0.5 to everyone. I have almost never seen anything important happen in GCX, and it probably shouldnt exist

i am flow. I will vote on the flow. I did HS PF and now college parli. run w/e you want but just don't be a dick. I have some experience with theory/Ks, but prob not enough for you to feel comfortable running them in front of me unless they are pretty intuitive (disclo, CWs, etc).

ANALYTICS ARE GOOD, PLEASE DO THEM. I WILL VALUE A VERY SMART ANALYTIC/LOGICAL RESPONSE AS MUCH AS I VALUE SOMETHING THAT IS CARDED WHEN THE WARRANT OF THE CARD IS NOT DEEPLY EXPLAINED. While I am tech > truth, I still need to hear the warrant behind the cards, and am receptive to the opposing teams calling out logical gaps in link chains. If you are reading a prepout on someone but cannot explain why your responses are true, I have a high propensity to drop your response, even if it might be dropped.

(stolen meme)

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, and please collapse early for cleaner rounds.

If I need to presume for some reason because there is literally nothing for me to vote on, I will presume to the 1st speaking team, not neg. If the reason isn't obvious, feel free to ask me why.

Ask me before the round about any other prefs or about APDA debate in college after round. If u want more feedback you can FB message me or just ask me after round.

Speaks - 3 ways to get a 30 from me:

1. Read a purely analytics rebuttal through FF. If you don't use cards and win, you certainly deserve it. I strongly encourage you to try this with me if you are confident, since I have a stronger propensity to pick up analytics than most TOC judges

2. If you win so hard on the flow you don't even need to do any weighing bc you are winning everything. If you think this is the case then just mention this part of the paradigm in ur speech and if ur right ill give 30.

3. win the round while using 0 prep time as a team - literally be ready to speak right after the preceding person (obviously does not apply if you used 0 prep then lost lol)

I will give speaks based on who debated the best, not who spoke the best. Basically whoever gave the round-winning analysis should be #1 always even if the other team spoke pretty

Michael Gradanski Hire

Rohith Gudati Hire

Rishabh Gulati Hire None

Hayden Harper Hire

Jordyn Danielle Howard Hire

Last changed on Sat November 13, 2021 at 11:00 AM EDT

Hi!

I am a pretty chill and laid back judge. I myself do PF, so I know most of the ins and outs of how a round should go. Below are a couple of answers to common questions and some things you should know before beginning your round.

I am 100% tech over truth. If you don’t give me anything technical to go off of, I will vote where I believe the arguments were the most convincing.
If you or your partner concede something, it will automatically go to the other team. Spending time on it will not help, so I recommend spending time elsewhere on the flow. Try to win other points.
I do not have any issues with speed. If you plan to speak at a speed that isn’t normal for Public Forum, please start an email chain with myself and the other competitors on it in order to ensure we all understand what is going on.
In order to make sure that I understand all of the arguments in full, I may stop the round to ask a quick question or two. Make sure you have a good explanation because if I don't understand your argument, how am I supposed to vote for it?
I don't vote on solvency just name dropped. You need to prove how YOU solve as well.
I will not tolerate being rude or overly aggressive towards your opponent. I understand cutting someone off because they have been talking for too long, but being plain rude is unnecessary and will be reflected in your speaker points.
Please DO NOT bring race into a debate in an inappropriate way. If you attempt to use my race as an advantage to win the round, you will lose and receive the lowest amount of speaker points the tournament will allow.
I love jokes during the round because it makes it a lot easier for me to watch. With that being said, any offensive jokes made will cost you and your partner the round. If you have to question whether or not the joke was offensive, DO NOT MAKE IT.
Make clean extensions of your link story if you want me to vote on a certain point in the debate. Just extending an uncontested impact or an uncontested response will not help. Tell me the story behind the point and if you can give me the card info as well so that i may draw the line on my flow.
PLEASE COLLAPSE. I AM BEGGING YOU. Collapsing makes the round better for literally everyone involved. If you try to go for everything and miss one key extension it could cost you the round and no one wants that. Soooooo collapse.
I welcome questions after the round to try to clarify why you won or lost the round, but please do not attempt to change my mind about the decision I have made. I attempt to make the best possible decision based on the flow and the content of the cases. Trying to change my mind will just aggravate me. It is what it is.

Overall, just be kind to your opponents and the judge. If you have any questions, please ask them before the round starts. It never hurts to ask. Happy debating.

Charles Huang Hire

Sid Inta Hire

Niko Jackson Hire

Last changed on Sat September 16, 2023 at 4:38 AM CDT

TL;DR:

Run what you like, I'll try to evaluate it fairly. As long as you're nice, I'm chill about how you choose to debate.

----

pronouns: he/they

Feel free to email with questions, and add me to the chain - ajacksondebate@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Niko. I'm a 3rd year at Hampshire college, and I debated for Rosemount High School 2017-2021. I have not debated and barely judged since I graduated, so keep in mind that I'm not familiar with the topic.

Important note: your mental health matters way more than debate. If you are struggling during a round, let me know verbally or in the room chat. I will stop the round immediately, no questions asked, and we can go from there.

General Stuff

-- Tech > truth - I will vote for anything that you run well.

-- Clarity is important because it's been a while since I have been processing spreading every weekend. If you slow down on your tags and signpost I should be fine. I won't look at your speech doc to flow.

-- Do not be blatantly discriminatory and include relevant trigger warnings.

Position-by-position breakdown:

I really like them, both aff and neg, however you choose to run them. Please make sure you give me a solid reason to vote for you.

Framework

I also really like framework. I think framework rounds raise a lot of important questions about debate that I will try to evaluate without bias.

CPs

These were never really my cup of tea, but I respect a well-run CP. If the mechanics of the CP get complex, make sure you're explain them slowly enough for me to keep up.

DAs

To quote the infamous Charlie Huang: "Your DA will probably be crappy, but most DAs are. Oh well." Not a lot to say here; I will vote on your DA.

Theory

I love theory as long as the flow is organized. I am open to voting on any theory, but the more ridiculous your claims get, the more likely I am to favor your opponents' argument that I should just dismiss them.

I don't know anything about the standards for what is and isn't topical this year, which means I'll probably be sympathetic to any T definition that isn't completely ridiculous. I enjoy T.

Case

I will vote on presumption if asked to but I'd rather not. Good case debate is super impressive.

Miscellaneous Preferences

From the iconic Kate Nozal: "If you purposely delete prewritten analytics from your doc before you send it please just think about why you are doing this..."

Please be kind; we're all here to learn.

Joshua Jacob Hire

Praneel Jadav Hire

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 4:41 AM CDT

Elkins '19 |TAMU'22| Rice '24

TLDR: Tech>Truth. My debate philosophy is that of the classic flow judge that I vote for the debater with the least mitigated link chain to the best-weighed impact.

Substance/LARP/Theory/K- 1|Heavy fwk- 2 |tricks etc...- 4

1.I look heavily towards the terminal impacts at the end of the round so weighing/crystallization will ultimately be beneficial for you. Just saying, "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc..." does not qualify as proper weighing. Give me the actual reasons/stats as to "how and why" you outweigh on all those fronts.

2. If you guys arrive at the same terminal impact ie; poverty, climate change, war, etc... the first place I look at is the strength of link on both sides.

3.FWK- I default to cost-benefit analysis unless any other fwk is given in round. If any other framework is given in the round, I will hold you to a higher standard in defending that framework. Overviews are fine with me but must come in the first rebuttal (no offensive overviews in the 2nd rebuttal).

4. If you are the 2nd speaking team, you must frontline all offense stemming from the first team's rebuttal. It is preferable if you frontline a good majority of the defense. Any dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

5.Anything said in final focus must have been alluded to in the summary.You guys literally have an extra minute of prep and time for your summary so there should be no excuses in not extending terminal defense and turns AND do some solid weighing. That being said... PLEASE EXTEND YOUR Turns/Terminal Def etc... through both Summary and Final Focus.

6. I know paraphrasing abuse has become more relevant these days so I will typically not have much leniency if I call for evidence and your paraphrasing completely misrepresents the evidence. That being said, it would be a safer bet not to paraphrase. Also, when I call for evidence, I will need to look at the entire article.

7. Speed is fine, just slow down on warrants, authors, and anything extremely important, ie; weighing/stats. But make sure there is clarity and organization (line by line) in all speeches.

8.Speaks: 28-30 usually. If you strategize really well and weigh/crystallize well, I'll give you a 29.5, even if you catch an L.

DA's/Advantages

A lot of advantages/DAs are super contrived, and it’s easy to convince me that impacts short of extinction should matter more. I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." If accessing extinction specifically, as opposed to just a big non-existential impact, is important to your impact-framing arguments, then you should justify that last internal link.

Make sure you specify the status of your Counter Plan in the constructive. If you do not have a properly warranted solvency advocate in the constructive, the chances that I will vote on the counter plan are slim to none. Make sure you establish a strong link chain and ensure that the plan itself is competitive.

Theory/T

Unless it's Disclosure theory, I WILL NOT evaluate any out-of-round abuse. If you want theory to be the highest layer of offense in the debate, make sure you explicitly state it. The only exceptions are theory shells which involve actual real-world norm-setting, that isn't ridiculous (like shoes and clothes theory). For Theory/T, I default to competing interps and Drop the Argument.

Kritiks

I can always appreciate a well-written Kritik, however, do not make an attempt to commodify for the sake of picking up a ballot. Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. Minimum standard of clarity: don't phrase your alternative as an infinitive.None of this "the alt is: to reject, to challenge, to deconstruct, etc" business. It needs a clearly specified actor.

+1 speaker pt for a Starbucks frappuccino mocha/vanilla iced coffee

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic.

If you have any questions, email me at ppj1002@gmail.com

- also for the email chain if need be^

Curtis Jefferson Hire

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 1:15 AM PDT

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Sung Jun Jeon Hire

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 6:36 AM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I vote:

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

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

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

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

Henry Johnston Hire

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 11:14 AM MDT

Add me on email chains and email me if you have any questions before/after the round: hankanator13@gmail.com

TL;DR: I consider myself Tab Ras. I am comfortable with any type of argument, I am comfortable with any speed (P L E A S E drop a doc if we're online. I dont care how good you are, momentary lag could literally lose you my ballot - if i dont hear it or read it, i dont flow it), don't impact turn structural violence if you have any moral compass, and be respectful. Debate is a game you play with your friends, and you can't be friends with someone you don't respect! Plus if everyone is mad at each other all the time, none of us have fun. I probably won't look at the debaters too much, but know that I am listening, flowing, and processing every word!

Above all, the most important part of every debate is inclusion: Elitist and exclusionary practices are killing this activity across the board.

When your opponent has an accessibility request; unless you have a legitimate reason that their request is unrealistic, please comply and adjust your strategy so that your opponent can participate at their best. Reading overly complex arguments so your opponent can't respond and spreading when your opponent has asked you not to does not make you cool, smart, or a good debater. The best debaters are excited to have their ideas tested by other intellectual minds, not so scared of losing that they will do anything they can to manipulate the ballot for a cheap win. Oh, and also, please remember to have fun :)

LD/PF

LD: Value/Criterion

This is framework. It decides how I vote and what impacts I vote on, but it is not in and of itself a reason to vote for you. So just know, if you stand up in your last speech and tell me your first voter is the v/c debate, I am inwardly sighing.
There are a million different arguments you can read for framework, and the majority are strong enough to vote through. That being said, in my humble opinion, V/C arguments like Morality are empty and mean nothing. Whose morals? What moral guidelines? So, know that the more specific and nuanced framework will most always win out over the vague and general one.

PF: Framework

For the love of all things good in this world, please stop reading Cost/benefit analysis in any and all debate events. PF topics are almost always written to have an inherently CBA structured debate, so reading it in case is a waste of your precious time. The only time you should read CBA is if your opponent reads some wacky framing and in the rebuttal you're like "Nah, cba lol" in which case you're fine. I'm exaggerating, but at the same time I'm really not.
Seething pretense out of the way... CBA is the assumption, but I 100% believe that you can read alternative framework in PF. When you can't read a plan, F/W can help you narrow the debate in a nonabrasive way, and can lead to some very powerful debates. That being said, the same standards apply from LD (and policy...)

Substance

Links, Links, Links. Debate is about the links. How do we get from your argument to its impact; how does voting for economic growth leads to a decrease in poverty; how does the existence of great power competition lead to nuclear war; how does implementing a UBI mean a marxist takeover that results in the death of all the soy plants as we are all forced to be vegans, etc! If you go through the effort of intentionally building a solid narrative that can guide me to the voting issues, the ballot will probably be in your favor. In other words, extend your case, don't just respond to what your opponent has said against your arguments!
Impact Calc! The more impact calc you do in the debate, the less I have to do after the speeches are over, and that only works in your favor. Tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponent's and the debate will be a lot easier for you.
A clean flow makes a clean ballot! Make the effort to stay extra organized, and it will only work in your favor.
Give me voters; in your perfect world, my RFD should just be a regurgitation of your last speech. Tell me where you're winning in your eyes. Tell me what's important to evaluate and make my life easier.
Be Confident in yourself! You've got this!

Everything else is in CX

I default to stock issues until told otherwise. I will vote on what you tell me to except impact turns to structural violence as explained above.

Here is where I have made enemies (Jett). I will vote for T. I will. But just be very aware that the bar for your Interp is really high. If their aff is actually non-topical, then it should be the easiest debate to vote on as I believe in fairness and education above all else. However, if the T debate is just teams spreading definitions of what Russia or NATO is back and forth, I will ignore T. You have been warned. :P

Theory

Every theory shell needs the following: Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters/Impacts, and Framing. Theory is to correct abuse, so don't make me sad by being abusive with your theory.

F/W

Tab Ras - what you say goes, right up until they say something different. Then you've gotta prove why your worldview is better.

I don't care how you structure your case, just make sure it has all the necessary parts. K affs are dope and you will make me happy by reading one, but it is really easy to tell if you're reading one without knowing what it actually is, typically by the first cx, if not the rebuttals (don't just steal off of open ev).

Every disad needs clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If they all exist in one piece of evidence, great. But you need to do the work to make the chain of events clear to me, as the clearer your argument is the more likely I am to vote on it.

I love a CP. Read one if you do too. Every CP needs a text, it needs to be mutually exclusive, and it needs to have a net benefit. I.e. I need to know what the counterplan is, why it can't happen in the aff world, and why it is a better course of action than the aff. Perms are a test of competition, so if they can prove why the aff and neg can coexist, it doesn't become a reason to vote neg anymore, and I can comfortably default to the aff.

Warning for Idaho: I understand that it can be exciting to get a prog judge and want to read a k on the rare opportunity. However, in my experience, it is better for you to win the round with the prog judge and get solid feedback on the arguments you know, as opposed to the arguments that you've brushed up on or downloaded from the wiki. I'm always in the mood for a K, but reread the fairness piece at the top of the RFD. If you're a varsity excited to smoke a novice because, unlike you, the novice hasn't spent hours reading Baudrillard or Mbembe, you are bad at debate and I dislike you. That being reiterated, I love a good K debate! A few notes:

Frame the ballot. When you read a K, give me a role in your vision of the world so that I know what's expected of me as a judge; give me instructions. If I have a stock lay case against an Identity K, I'm going to need work from both sides to determine the ballot. Most likely the K will be read against a case that has V/C or CBA which is framework. So, contest the moral question brought by the other team; don't ignore it.

In 999/1000 cases I Do Not Believe in You Link You Lose. Prove the impact, no matter how obvious the impact is (even cap). Prove everything and assume nothing.
The more specific the alt the better. Personally, I believe the material strategies outweigh complex ivory tower proposals to change the entirety of the human race's epistemology. In other words, I buy the alt of anarchist revolution by defunding the police and handing out guns in the street more than I buy the alt of transforming society into hippies singing kumbayah and loving one another. Extreme and hyper specific examples for sure, but I hope the point is carried across.

Do it, but do it right. I need a clear impact, a clear link to the aff, and an even clearer alternative. A material course of action is always better than a vague epistemology argument (tho epistemology is obviously key to K). I you want me to burn everything down, I will grab the torch, but you need to do all of the work necessary to outweigh the aff.

Pranav Kaginele Hire

Ben Kirsch Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:45 PM EDT

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | Umich '25

Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.

Before the round, tell me your favorite song and I will play it like a baseball walk up song before your speeches.

--- PF ----

I think I'm a pretty standard flow judge. I'll evaluate anything, and you should do whatever you do best in the round. That said, here are some preferences I have:

Speed is totally fine. I'll be able to flow mostly anything, unless you're spreading 3081 paraphrased blips per second. I will not flow off a speech doc, I can't read.

The second rebuttal should frontline the first, but I won't drop you for not doing it. If the second rebuttal doesn't frontline, then the first final focus should pull the defense from the first rebuttal. Don't go over defense that doesn't have a response in 1st summary that's wasting time.

More progressive things: Theory is fine but not encouraged. I do not want to evaluate a paraphrasing or disclosure round, it's just not very fun. If you win, you win, but don't expect good speaks. My bias is that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is good, but that won't impact the round. I'm probably one of the best K judges you will get in PF. Tricks are truly horrible things, but if you win it you win it.

Post-rounding is encouraged. Please ask questions during my RFD, it helps me focus feedback. If you think I made the wrong decision, feel free to tell me that and reason with me. I'm not very smart, so it's very possible I'm wrong. If you believe my decision was wrong, punch me in the face.

--- Policy ---

Note: Basically nothing in the PF Paradigm applies, don't read it.

I only started doing policy in college, and have watched single-digit high school policy rounds. You should treat me as if I know literally nothing about the topic (because I don't know very much about the topic). It'd also help me make a better decision if you went a little bit slower than top speed.

I'd be comfortable judging either a policy round or a K round, but I'd probably be better at evaluating policy rounds. I'll vote on absolutely anything so long as there are warrants and you are explaining things well.

Tech over truth within reason - it matters to me that you are making good arguments. Those arguments can be as bizarre as you please, so long as you're explaining and warranting things well.

Impact calculus that's somewhat specific to the impacts being read would probably be good. The less I use my brain, the happier you will be. (I'm not very smart)

All things considered, I'd rather the aff have a plan, but who am I to tell you how to debate. I'll be generally sympathetic to framework arguments but don't let my preferences impact your strategy too much.

Please face me during speeches, I feel really uncomfortable when teams don't do this.

Have fun with it and be nice to each other.

Ben Kirsch Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:45 PM EDT

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | Umich '25

Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.

Before the round, tell me your favorite song and I will play it like a baseball walk up song before your speeches.

--- PF ----

I think I'm a pretty standard flow judge. I'll evaluate anything, and you should do whatever you do best in the round. That said, here are some preferences I have:

Speed is totally fine. I'll be able to flow mostly anything, unless you're spreading 3081 paraphrased blips per second. I will not flow off a speech doc, I can't read.

--- Policy ---

Note: Basically nothing in the PF Paradigm applies, don't read it.

Tech over truth within reason - it matters to me that you are making good arguments. Those arguments can be as bizarre as you please, so long as you're explaining and warranting things well.

Impact calculus that's somewhat specific to the impacts being read would probably be good. The less I use my brain, the happier you will be. (I'm not very smart)

Please face me during speeches, I feel really uncomfortable when teams don't do this.

Have fun with it and be nice to each other.

Josh Klow 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).

Anita Li Hire

Last changed on Wed April 6, 2022 at 10:47 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Anita (she/her), a freshman at Northwestern University. I recently graduated from National Cathedral School in Washington D.C., where I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm definitely not a lay judge but i'm also not super comfortable with speed/prog. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know! My email is anitali2002@yahoo.com.

Please keep track of prep! Also I don't flow card names so if you say "extend Bob," i'm not gonna know what you're referring to.

Some things I like:

· Second Rebuttal has to frontline everything you're collapsing on and address all turns your opponents put on your case or concede to the delink.

· Weighing is super important! Weighing needs to be comparative (don’t just tell me why your impacts are important, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s impacts). Please start weighing in summary. No new weighing in Second FF.

· Please signpost + give off time road maps! Tell me what you're responding to.

· Please explain your arguments! Don’t just read statistics and then expect that to stand on itself, explain to me why that statistic is true. (warrants are important!)

· If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be in speech and extended across all speeches

· In second half, tell me what you're winning off of, whyyou’re winning, and tell me why I should be voting for you!

. 1st summary is the last speech where I will accept new arguments. New weighing and cross-apps are still okay after tho. New implications? I'll think about it.

. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!

Theories/Ks

· I don’t really understand Ks and Theories well so if you do run one please explain it well and in a manageable speed.

· If I feel like you’re running theory/ a weird overview/underview just to get a easy win, the chance of me voting for it is pretty low, especially if your opponents point out that it's abusive and explain why. But if you’re running theory because your opponents are actually being abusive, I can vote for it.

Behavior

· There’s a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. If I see you being overly aggressive, especially during cross, I’ll take off speaks and I’ll comment on it in my RFD. Also it can decrease your chances of winning.

· If you’re speaking quickly and make sure you ask your opponents if that's okay. I will try to flow to the best of my ability but I will most likely end up missing stuff. Having a speech doc is not an excuse to speak as fast as you want. I will only look at your speech doc for the duration of the speech.

.I'll only look at a card if you tell me to look at it.

. If you incorporate a tiktok dance or kpop choreo into a speech, I will increase your speaks up to 3 points.

. If you can guess my BTS bias or Blackpink bias, I will boost your speaks (prob only like 0.5 max lol)

Jason Li Hire

Anna Liu Hire

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 4:25 PM EDT

hi! i debated pf and parli for princeton high school (2018-22). i now coach for flintridge and compete in british parli for usc

lmk if you have any questions on facebook or email me at liuanna@usc.edu

tldr normal flow judge who is lazy and doesn't like intervening

my preferences:

honestly, analytics/logic > evidence. i'm super disinclined to vote off an arg if i don't understand it even if you throw a billion stats at me. i'll probably believe anything if it's warranted enough though. this also means i have a really high threshold for extensions in summary & ff so always overexplain please

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range or send a speech doc (but this will make me really sad i hate flowing off speech docs just read a shorter case pleaseee). i can flow faster if im forced but then i might miss things which will make us both sad. also i don't flow author/source names so when u extend don't just say "extend amadeo" tell me what amadeo said

bare minimum for second rebuttal is responding to turns, you also should frontline anything you want to go for (yay sticky defense)

i don't listen to cross, i won't look at cards unless you tell me i have to, i'm not gonna time anything so y'all keep track, idc what you wear to round

if you have questions about my decision please ask me! i'm always down to help clear anything up

don't be any of the -ists, if you do i drop you with the lowest speaks possible

progressive args:

disclaimer: i was an east coast pf debater 2 years ago who only ran trad, run at your own risk

i am willing to buy anything but ONLY IF

1- you warrant everything (i mean literally everything, from your links or standards to especially rotb!!) and you warrant it well, i have a very high threshold for this

2- you speak slow because if i have to flow off of a speech doc because you want to read 14 tricks instead of 7 i will actually start sobbing right there on the spot and then not be able to flow due to the tears blurring my vision

basically explain it to me like i'm a lay judge

Serena Mao Hire

Anisha Musti Hire

Aqil Naeem Hire

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 4:26 PM EDT

I'm a typical flow judge that did decently well in PF while I was involved (qualled twice, won a quarters bid, etc). Only a few caveats:

1) I hate speech docs. I will not flow off the doc but off what I hear. I've never been unable to flow speed in PF (so far). If you go too fast, I'll ask for a doc.

2) I like evidence comparison, but comparisons that make me actually think are not good. Lay it out for me. Analyze the discrepancy, why it matters, and how it impacts my choice as a judge.

3) I hate weighing. Weighing is obviously a must, but I feel too much of recent debates I've judged have been "meta-weighing" and just back and forth on weighing as opposed to substance. I really like it when there's some clash on weighing, but even more emphasis on how people win the actual substance of the argument and how the arguments implicate under the weighing. I'd prefer you to add how your contention fits your opponent's weighing mechanism more than you reading pre-written reasons why your weighing mechanism is good.

4) As hinted earlier I dislike things that are pre-written (especially rebuttal and summary). Makes for boring debate and ruins the educational value of each round. I won't dock speaks (my partner also only read off a doc lmao), but I will not give you a 30. I'm looking for responses in rebuttal that are specific to the particular details in your opponent's case, weighing/frontlines in summary that are also pertinent to the debate, etc. I'm here to judge your ability as debaters, not readers lol.

5) I know how to evaluate theory from my LD days (a long time ago, keep that in mind), but not Ks that aren't simple like Cap Ks. If you decide to run these arguments, I hope you're okay with a possible judge screw, or ready to explain the crap out of your argument. The best explanations often end with "_____ means that you vote for _____"

6) I know I'm asking you to explain a lot and terminalize it into my decision, but I feel that's the only way for me to limit judge intervention. I will never make a cross-application of arguments/weighing/anything for the team- make it yourself. I will not presume for a side for you either. If somehow I have to presume I'll vote for the team with higher speaks, then deduct 2 points from both teams.

7) Most importantly have fun, keep it civil, and enjoy the tournament. If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know!

Amulya Natchukuri Hire

Last changed on Tue March 15, 2022 at 11:51 PM EDT

Edit for Yale:

Its been about 6 months since I've been in a technical/progressive round. Slowing down significantly and doing more explanation of your arguments would be super helpful, especially since I'm not very familiar with this topic.

Short Version/TLDR

Hi! I’m Amulya (she/her). I did LD for 4 years on both the local and national circuit (more often on the local circuit than on the national circuit) at Bridgewater-Raritan HS. I mostly went for theory and phil. That being said, I’ll evaluate any type of argument as long as it’s explained well. Speed is fine, but if ur extemping analytics at top speed, there’s a good chance I’ll miss something (esp for online tourneys), so maybe go 60-70% top speed. Also, please signpost, weigh, and collapse w a good ballot story!! Put me on ur email chains. If you have any questions before or after the round lmk

email: amulyanatchukuri@gmail.com

Extra stuff:

Defaults (these only apply if neither side takes a stance on these issues):

Tech>Truth (this won't change)

Epistemic Confidence

Comparative Worlds> Truth Testing

Competing interps, dta, no RVIs

Presumption affirms, Permissibility negates

Theory/T

I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. Weigh between interps, standards, etc because I think these debates can get blippy very quickly. I don't care how frivolous the shell is-- I'll vote on it as long as you win it. Don't read reasonability with "gut check" bright lines- i don't know what this means to you.

I'm fine evaluating them as long as you have clear explanations. I'd rather see you spend more time on line-by-line instead of long overviews that implicitly answer the aff. If your explanation is just a ton of jargon, I'll prob be confused-- I'd rather see a clear articulation of your theory of power and why I should endorse your method/alt.

Policy/LARP

I mostly did policy/larp on the local circuit, so I'm not very experienced with the more technical aspects of larp. However, I'll still be able to evaluate it as long as you can explain it clearly (eg, don't just say " evaluate through sufficiency framing" -- tell me what that looks like on the flow).

Phil

I really enjoy good phil debates, and to an extent, smart phil tricks. I'm most familiar with kant, hobbes, and butler, but I'll evaluate any other types of phil as long as u can explain it well.

**PF Update

I primarily did LD in hs but did a little bit of PF as a junior so I understand speech structures, etc. Everything else in this paradigm applies to PF as well so ig u can refer to it for specifics. Other than that I think its a really intuitive event and I'll judge any kind of debate you want to have.

Ananya Natchukuri Hire

Eli Qian Hire

Anish Reddy Hire

Neha Satish Hire

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

About me: I am pursuing a PhD in Chemistry at UT Austin. I competed in PF on the national circuit for 3 years as well as the Austin circuit. I want to preface that if there is any way at all that I can make this round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. I did graduate in 2020 so it has been a few years since I've debated so keep that in mind.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, but that doesn't mean I vote on arguments that aren't fleshed out and blipply extended. I will vote on the least mitigated link chain, with a heavily weighed impact. A debate round should mimic a funnel, meaning that arguments should be collapsed on as the round progresses. It's also helpful if both you and your partner develop a narrative from the beginning of the round. Be sure to signpost as well as give me a clear road map before speeches. And if you say anything sexist, ableist, racist, etc expect an L25.

Speed: If you are going to spread send your speech docs to nehasatish510@gmail.com, also be sure to be aware of your speed around less experienced debaters

Framework: If you read a framework, be sure to actually bring it up as the round progresses, don't just not mention it again after constructive. In general, if a framework isn't provided to me I will default util.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should frontline offense especially turns.

Summary: Please weigh and collapse. Anything you want me to vote on should be mentioned in summary. Make it clear by this point in the round which arguments you are going for.

Final Focus: Final focus should mirror the summary speech.

Weighing: Dropping jargon such as we outweigh on magnitude/scope/timeframe without explaining/warranting anything to me does not count as weighing. I prefer when you explain why magnitude>scope or timeframe>magnitude, explain why your weighing mechanism should be preferred over your opponents. If you don't weigh I will be forced to do it for you and that means I will have to intervene which I'd rather not do.

Evidence: Be sure you aren't misinterpreting the author's intent. Make sure you can pull up your evidence if your opponents ask for it. Don't do any crazy debater math because if your opponents can't verify that it makes the round un educational. Please be honest with your evidence. If you need me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me in your speech. I won't ask to see any evidence unless you explicitly tell me to because I believe it promotes judge intervention.

Cross: Just relax and don't be rude. If you need me to evaluate something from cross, be sure to mention it in your speech.

Speaks: Speaks are based on clarity and strategy. Please be kind to your opponents as there is a difference between being assertive versus overly aggressive and rude. +1 speaks if you make me laugh.

Theory/K's/CP's: I don't have much familiarity with progressive arguments because as a debater I always debated substance. If you do decide to run theory make sure it is warranted and merited, don't just read it as a means to mess with your opponents. If you run theory I will evaluate it as the most important argument in the round, and be sure to really explain it, and remember I don't have much experience with evaluating it. Although I will vote off of progressive arguments, please don't run progressive arguments on a clearly less experienced debater/novice.

Finally, debate is a stressful activity in itself so please be respectful and be kind to your opponents and have fun:) Please always feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round!

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)

Arnav Sinha Hire

Tait Smith Hire

Last changed on Sun April 18, 2021 at 10:52 AM EDT

TLDR:

I'm flow/tech until you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I can handle spreading, just send a speech doc that includes anything you read so I don’t accidentally miss something, I'd hate to vote someone down because audio cut out or my hearing failed me. If you're gonna read primarily analytics or logic include bullet points.

If you want more details read below. If you want the most up to date info, ask me in round.

Important Note: I will not look at any evidence unless it is asked of me to do so in round, once you ask me to examine the evidence I assume you give me full discretion to read the entire article or study and make judgements based on its contents.

Experience:

I have 4 years of experience in PF, Congress, and LD. I have no exposure to Ks, but I do have experience with and enjoy judging theory debate. I am currently studying economics at Tufts University and have familiarity with urbanization and healthcare. This will not affect decision making, but I believe in the spirit of fairness I should disclose my familiarities with related subjects.

Speaker Point System:
Here's a rudimentary point system

24: You broke a rule or were racist
27: Worst you can get normally, your speeches were messy and impossible to understand.
28: Mediocre, you gave your speech monotone or had several issues with clarity
28.5: Average
29: Good, you gave your speeches clearly most of the time and had few issues during cross.
30: Great, you didn't have any noticeable issues

This is what will lose you points
1. Interrupting during crossfire or trying to turn it into another speech instead of asking a question
2. Not speaking clearly(I give a lot of leeway on this)
3. Lying
4. Being rude or disrespectful

How I judge debate:

I vote almost solely on what happens in the round with framework being the first thing I consider and speaking and strategy being the last. So if you impact to only economic downfall but forget to attack the framework that says we should focus on saving lives then that’s an L for you.

While I am a flow/tech judge, if you run blatantly untrue or abusive arguments I will step in because then I see you as just being an awful human being. This hasn't ever happened, but I want it to be known that I reserve the right to intervene in order to be transparent as a judge. This shouldn't ever happen unless you run "racism is good" like that one kid in Oklahoma.

If you hold your opponents to a standard in round you must meet that standard too.

What I like:

1. Thorough and well done weighing

2. Collapsing of arguments

3. Clearing extensions through till final focus

4. Clear and quantified impacts

5. Well written theory

How to annoy me:

Here are a few ways you can annoy me in the round: lying, not giving your opponents the evidence they call for in a timely manner, defining every word in the resolution, acting arrogant, expecting me to weigh for you, running arguments that are immature and demeaning such as racism good or that sexism doesn't exist.

Debate is meant to be inclusive and any attempts to undermine that will lose you speaker points very quickly.

Extra notes:

Occasionally I will have suggestions for evidence, cases, or arguments that I do not have the materials on standby for, if you ever want to follow up on an RFD and ask for a clarification you can email me at tait.milo.smith@gmail.com.

How I judge extemp:

To me, extemp is just as much about being a charismatic speaker as it is having good arguments. If I’m not interested in what you’re telling them you’re not doing a great job. There are several ways to get my attention including being humorous or having a good introduction. I’ve had people win rounds despite having weaker arguments because it actually became painful to listen to the other speakers' monotone performances. Your speaking abilities makes up half your ranking.

Drake Spaugh Hire None

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

Anya Tang Hire

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 7:35 AM EDT

Please put me on the email chain 4ristotle.x@gmail.com.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line and uses creative round vision. Debaters reading fun arguments and having fun is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event and I greatly appreciate it when teams use grand cross differently/creatively (i.e. students who use grand to ask how everyone's day is; students who use grand to discuss and propose moves towards equity in the event). I believe Ks need alts in PF.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge infrequently now. I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are just my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity.

Speaks- My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain high most of the time, especially during bubble rounds. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you. If there's something really egregious pointed out to me in the round, speaks will reflect that.

Speed - Number your responses. Please. More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson after the round with you.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions. Please be respectful of my time. Ask me for lit recs! (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts- For every student I judge, but especially students of color, queer/trans students, misogyny-affected students, students with disabilities, and first generation/low-income students: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. Y'all are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: I am a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage, and a good judge for you if this is your millionth time reading your favorite K author. I have the same expectations for your engagement with the scholarship in both cases; this is to say, I hope you provide a rigorous and original synthesis of the author(s) that you read with the topic that you choose to think through/with/against/beyond. What does this look like: you are identifying specific parts of the topic that you are critiquing, articulating how the impact interacts with the affirmative, and explaining why I need to frame the round in a certain way.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and critical scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Direct outing. Financial status, disability, queerness/transness, gender, trauma -- if you force your opponent to disclose that they have a disability to avoid a theory shell, I will be unhappy. I like it even less when y'all spend half an hour before round digging up your opponent's personal information, school, neighborhood, etc. It's unsafe, violating, and makes a lot of assumptions. If your opponent argues that this should be a reason to drop you, I will be inclined to drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. I evaluate direct outing differently from arguments that a certain model/method outs people and renders them vulnerable to structures of harm. What does this look like? "Are you queer?" "Can you afford a coach?" "Do you have a disability?" I understand debaters have good intentions and want to make rounds accessible sometimes. I also understand finding spaces of affinity is difficult. But I ask that y'all not do it under the competitive tensions of an adjudicated round. One way that has been helpful for me (and perhaps you have other suggestions) has been to ask, "What are some things I can do to make the round accessible for the both of us? For me, it would help to have 14pt or larger font for our tags."

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Zachary Thomas Hire

Last changed on Thu February 17, 2022 at 4:55 PM CDT

Tempus Debate

College: Harvard Community College '27

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Pref Chain

(1 being pref me and 5 being strike me)

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

Trad Deb8: 1

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

DA: 1

FW: 1

Theory/Topicality: 2

Kritique (Idpol, Word PIK, Performance): 2

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

Counter Plan: 3-4

Phil: 5

LARP: 2-3

Tricks: 5 - I dare you lmao

Spikes: 5

-----

TL;DR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

***Most Online Tournaments***

Yes Add me to the chain zthomas8491@gmail.com

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

-----

***Tempus Debate LD Camp Tournament***

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

-----

Paradigm

Novice PF:

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

https://pfforward.weebly.com/

https://www.learnpublicforum.com/

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Other notes for Novices...

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

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

-----

Varsity PF:

Favorite Debate:

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

-----

tech>truth:

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

-----

Clarity>speed:

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

-----

Warranting:

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

-----

WEIGH:

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

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

-----

Off-time Roadmap/Signpost:

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

-----

Time:

You guys are BIG KIDZ so KEEP YOUR OWN TIME

-----

Flex-Prep:

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

-----

Cross:

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

-----

Frontline

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

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

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

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

-----

Collapse:

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

-----

Extensions:

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

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

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

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

-----

Offense>weighing>defense

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

I will not flow any new analysis or evidence in FF

-----

Evidence

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

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

-----

Overviews

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

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

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

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

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

-----

---

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

---

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

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

-----

BQ:

Ima be straight, math = dumb

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

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

-----

Fiat:

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

-----

Framework:

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

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

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

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

-----

T/Theory:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

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

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

- I am down for some frivolous theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Disads:

- Don't read in 2nd rebuttal

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

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

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

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

-----

Kritiks:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

K Affs

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

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

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

-----

CPs

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

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

-----

Presumption:

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

-----

LD:

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

Some things for LD...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Speaks:

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

Make me laugh and you’ll get higher speaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 - Offensive to others during the round

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

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

-----

Credit to Sam Goldstone for this...

"A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH"

"ok bud" - Christian Rhoades

Andrew Thong Hire

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 5:51 AM EDT

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Atharva Aniruddha Weling Hire

Last changed on Wed October 27, 2021 at 2:04 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Atharva and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA for four (more like three) years.

Off the bat, I don't have time for racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. I will drop you and tank your speaks. I also understand that we as debaters can often get heated in round (believe me, I've been there), but I would really appreciate it if you could try to maintain civility so that everyone feels comfortable. Please read trigger warnings when necessary and contact me if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you: atharvaweling@gmail.com

My preferences:

I am primarily tech over truth. That being said, I have a low bar for responses to outlandish arguments (i.e. death good). I will only call for evidence if it is pertinent to my decision and highly contested.

I want clear extensions in the latter half of the round. This means warrants, impacts, and any cards that you think are important for either. I'm not going to vote off of the general idea of your case.

The number one thing that you can do to win my ballot is provide a clear narrative throughout the round, which means consistency between speeches and well-explained arguments.

I will always prefer good logic to bad evidence. Every argument you make should have both a warrant and an implication or else it becomes meaningless to me.

WEIGH. From rebuttal onwards, preferably. Good weighing > bad defense in my opinion, so please extend comparative weighing throughout the round.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is a must; at the very least, get turns. I am also highly skeptical of long disads or offensive overviews in second rebuttal and would advise against it.

Similarly, if defense you want to collapse on is frontlined in second rebuttal, it has to be backlined in first summary. However, if it is dropped in second rebuttal, it may be brought up in first final focus.

If you're going to spread, strike me. I cannot handle speed, plain and simple, even with a speech doc. The bottom line is that I would love it if you spoke to me like a parent judge who knows tech jargon.

I have very little experience with progressive argumentation. I won't ask you not to read it, but I do ask that you explain it slowly and in-depth if you do, so no full-blown shells. I will not evaluate plans, CPs, or tricks.

Unless you really screw up on anything from the first paragraph, your speaks likely won't fall below a 28. You can raise them by feeding my ego with insincere compliments.

Lastly, have fun. I want the round to be as enjoyable as possible for everyone involved, so crack a few jokes and feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm or my decision whenever you want to.

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 !

Amanda Yates Hire

Last changed on Sat March 6, 2021 at 9:59 AM CDT

About Me: I currently attend Texas A&M University, and have competed in Public Forum for 3 years. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. Pronouns: she/her

LD and CX: Please treat me like a mom haha.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, I will flow however I appreciate clear signposting and a roadmap before your speech. Also if you say anything sexist, racist, ableist etc. expect an L25.

Trigger Warnings: If you are planning on running something surrounding a sensitive topic, actually message your opponents before the round or read a trigger warning at the beginning of your speech and give your opponents a chance to opt out, and actually read a different constructive if they ask you to.

Speed: I can flow speed, but if your gonna spread send the doc. If you think something is super important and round defining make sure it is said at an understandable pace. If you are spreading against a clearly less experienced team I will dock your speaks.

How I vote: I am of the belief that a debate round should look like a funnel, as the round progresses the number of arguments decrease but those that remain are deep, well-warranted, weighed and clearly extended through all speeches. I will vote on the best weighed, least mitigated impact, with the clearest and most warranted link chain. Develop a narrative starting in constructive and continuing throughout all your speeches.

I think defense in the first rebuttal is sticky (first summary does not have to extend it unless it is frontlined in the second rebuttal), and require the second rebuttal to respond to offense on their case.

I am tech over truth in most cases- however, I won't vote off something that you blippily extend and you haven't fleshed out and explained, even if the other team doesn't respond to it.

Weighing: I hate hate hate being forced to intervene and only vote off of impacts that are weighed- meaning explain to me why your impacts, as well as links, are the most strong and the most important to consider in the round. Also I don't consider dropping weighing jargon as weighing. Do not say we short circuit/outweigh on magnitude/timeframe without warranting WHY you outweigh that is NOT WEIGHING. Explain why your weighing mechanism is better than your opponents if you have competing mechanisms.

Extensions: This means in order for me to evaluate your argument, I need a clear explanation of the whole link chain leading down to the impact in summary/ff. If you just read me a card name in rebuttal/summary/final focus without reading the argument, and the warrant behind it, I won't evaluate the argument. The same concept applies to impacts, if you skip to them without explaining to me how you got there, I won't vote off of them.

Cross: I won't vote off of anything in cross unless you bring it up in a speech, but if you are overly aggressive or rude I will dock speaker points.

Summary: I LOVE a good big-picture summary, but if that's not your style I'm okay with line by line too, but please remain clear. Weigh!!!! First summary doesn't have to extend all defense, but if it is frontlined in second rebuttal, or is super important and round defining extend it, also respond to turns.

Final Focus: Voters are appreciated, I won't vote off an argument that wasn't extended in summary.

Speaks: I start at a 27.5 and based off of both strategic decisions in the round as well as clarity, sportsmanship (be nice) I will either go up or down from there. But if your opponents are being sassy, you can be sassy back as long as you aren't rude. Extra points if you make me laugh-making fun jokes/puns related to the topic like fun contention names, or quoting vines/tik toks in speeches or crossfire. Read the room, if your opponents are clearly less experienced or uncomfortable with the attitude you are presenting I will dock speaks.

Evidence: I won't call for it unless you ask me to, or if you haven't weighed and I have to intervene, or like if it's really contested or something. Also paraphrasing is okay as long as you're not misconstruing the evidence and don't extrapolate values from a piece of evidence using "debater math" it's unfair to your opponents and not educational. If you take forever to find evidence I will dock speaks.

Framework: I default util (the greatest good for the most amount of people) unless you read something different, don't read a framework in constructive unless you are going to bring it up in your later speeches as a weighing mechanism

Theory/K's/Progressive Arguments: I don't have enough familiarity with these for me to comfortably vote off of them. If the shell is super clear and extended through the whole round I will evaluate it just like any other argument, but I don't have enough technical experience to be comfortable making decisions on progressive rounds that are super close, so if you don't want a weird decision just don't run the argument. Make sure it is MERITED, meaning you aren't reading it just to trip up your opponents and waste everybody's time. I will dock speaks if you are running something progressive on a clearly less experienced team.

Finally, Debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, please treat it as such and not scream at each other or make me stressed out, if you have any questions, message me or ask me before round.

My email is bellamanday@gmail.com

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

Peter Zhang Montgomery Blair

Login to Tabroom

The Tab N Dab Invitational

2020 — Discord, CA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges