NONE
2020 — CANCELED, US
PF Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideDavid Coates
Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14
For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu
2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89
Aff winning percentage: .551
("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).
I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.
I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.
I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.
You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.
Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.
Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.
I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.
I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.
Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?
I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.
OVERVIEW
I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.
My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).
My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.
THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS
That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:
1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.
1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.
2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.
3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.
3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.
3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."
3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.
4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:
a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.
b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.
c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/
d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.
e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.
f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?
g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.
5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:
a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.
b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.
c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.
6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:
a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.
b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.
7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.
8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.
9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.
NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!
PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory
I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.
Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.
N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.
I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?
Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.
AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM
NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.
NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."
NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".
That said:
1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:
2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.
3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."
*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.
4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.
5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.
6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.
7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.
a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.
b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.
c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.
d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.
e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?
Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
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:
--
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).
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://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