Tabroom.com

Zoom and Boom COVID Classic

2020 — Zoom/Discord, TN/US

PF Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Somil Agarwal Hire 8 rounds

Nibhan Akbar Hire

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 11:44 PM CDT

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

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

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

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

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Gaurav Asthana Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 1, 2020 at 3:50 PM EDT

Background:

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University and I've coached for a variety of camps and schools over the past couple of years. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. This also means full extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure it's comparative, not just general reasons your argument matters. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I think the best teams go deeper with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

- Frontlining in the second rebuttal. I don't think you need to do a full 2-2 split in the second rebuttal but you are obligated to respond to any new offense brought up in the first rebuttal. I definitely think it is strategic to frontline the argument you are going for.

- Extensions of defense. Every back-half speech is obligated to respond to your opponents' case and with a three-minute summary, this is certainly doable.

- Jokes. Making me laugh gives you a nice bump in speaks, just don't try to be funny if you're not.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred slower debate. Along the same lines, I have never been a fan of really blippy rebuttals where you read a lot of random cards.

- New offense in the second rebuttal. I am not a fan of new offense being read in rebuttal as an overview (weighing overviews are nice though). I think turns are great, but if you're speaking second in the round, I require that you weigh any turns that you read. This is specifically to encourage you to not read a bunch of blippy turns in second rebuttal. I think it is strategic for the first rebuttal to weigh their turns as well, but I don't require it.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). If you think something abusive happens, call it out. In general though, I don't have a lot of experience with critical argumentation and those types of debates will probably naturally end up with you getting a) a worse decision and b) less educational value from me as a judge.

- Tabletotes. They honestly just look silly and are a pretty weird flex.

Ashwin Balaje Hire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't forget to have fun in round!!

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

above all, be nice

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

message me for questions

Bryan Benitez Hire

Alec john Boulton Hire

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

alec.j.boulton.molero@vanderbilt.edu

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

-General-

Tech > truth, "tabula rasa" whatever.

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

Postround.

Cool with anyone speaking in cross.

Ignore my facial expressions.

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

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

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

-Traditional-

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

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

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

-Progressive-

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

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

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

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

-Evidence-

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

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

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

-Speaks-

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

- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)

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

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

- have your evidence ready

- play fair

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

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

Inko Bovenzi Hire

Leo Brooks Hire None

Robert Brown Hire

Sofia Chang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 5:04 AM CDT

I did four years of PF on the TX/national circuit and graduated in 2020. I won’t know anything about the current topic, so please be clear and define topic jargon!

I'd like to think as little as possible, please do the thinking for me. You can make this easier by signposting, warranting every argument, explaining the implication of each argument, and collapsing early in the round.

I'm okay with average fast PF speaking but probably not spreading - I'm not gonna flow off a speech doc so you can spam 100 random turns. I will yell clear twice. Fair warning, I'm 2 years out of debate and a little out of practice so take that as you will

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; defense sticks through first summary if it's not touched in the rebuttal (but you should extend terminal defense).

Weigh as early as you can; I won't look to new weighing in the FF.

I'll only call for evidence if it’s disputed or sketchy/someone explicitly tells me to call for it.

I never did progressive debate so I have a very sparse understanding of how it works. If you read progressive args, please be very clear, don't use too much jargon, & try to frame them as traditional arguments. I'll do my best to evaluate them (although I really don't prefer or feel qualified to do so).

Don't be rude/sexist/ableist/racist/etc, respect pronouns, and use content warnings. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me (sofia.chang@utexas.edu) if you feel at any point unsafe in round.

Other things that generally make me sad:

If you're being really mean/condescending, I will be very sad

Don't read carded responses if you're not going to be able to pull up the cards in < 1-2 min. I really dislike waiting 10 min for teams to find cards and then hearing "I can't find the card, you can regard it as an analytic" – I will dock speaks!!

Please don't ask the other team to type up their analytical args and add it to the email chain, unless the debate is virtual and the audio cuts out. It takes forever. Use flex prep or ask about it in cross!

I don't like the term "third world" countries

Keep your own time!

Debate is hard - be cool, have fun!

Wallace Chen Hire

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

Clements '20

email: wallacethechen@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ilana Cuello-Wolffe Hire

Avalon Dalesandro Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 2, 2021 at 5:56 AM PDT

I debated throughout high school for Campbell Hall and I worked this summer at the Public Forum Academy (https://www.publicforumacademy.com/). I'm now a sophomore at Vanderbilt University woohoo. This paradigm is a slightly modified version of Sandeep Shankars lol!

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but if the response comes in second summary, a more well-explained response would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more.

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final focus consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

PLEASE don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well. With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

Even though as a debater I went fairly fast, I really don't like crazy speed. If you have a real need for speed, just make sure it's clear. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

I will never read a speech doc in public forum. If I couldn't understand what you were saying, that's on you

Tech vs Truth:

I'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.

Miscellaneous:

I vote for the status quo on presumption

I will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

I am wholly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me. I've had more then a few teams ignore this and I'm telling you, it really didn't serve them well. I'll try my best but that's all I can do.

Speaks - they'll be based on your ability to convince me rhetorically, not necessarily on your strategy. This is still Public Forum Debate, it's the name of the game. Have respect for the game hehehe

Crossfire:

I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding.

please ask any questions you may have before the round! wooohoo have fun

Nilay Gandhi Hire

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 2:16 PM CDT

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State thrice and TOC/NSDAs twice. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon. Do not put me on the email chain and please go at a very slow speed.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

Ask any questions to me if necessary (feel free to contact me at nilaygandhi@utexas.edu) , and remember to enjoy each round!

Edison Huang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM EDT

Updated for Septober 2020

small topic knowledge

I debated for Plano West HL. he/him

General:

If you're reading material that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger or content warning (preferably this is done anonymously thru a Google form or smth). If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, you will be dropped.

Tech > truth. If you are not paraphrasing and are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.2 This also applies if you've disclosed on NDCA or CircuitDebater. Good warranting, weighing, and extensions will make me want to vote for you. I care more about how you articulate your warrants than the specifics of your evidence. Exception is if you're misrepresenting. If you are conceding de-links or non-uniques to kick out of turns, they must be made in the speech after the original response was made. Please preflow before the round. Keep track of your own and each others' time, and please don't steal prep. ehuang02 [at] gmail.com for any other questions, or message me on Facebook. I'm sorry if I make a bad decision. I'll try not to. also available for coaching so hmu

Important stuff:

1. Any offense that you want me to evaluate needs to be in summary and final focus and extended properly. Make sure every part of the arg is extended. If you are missing links, warrants, or an impact, I will probably not vote on it. This goes for turns also. If you extend a turn without explicitly implicating what the impact is, I won't vote for it. You also ought to re-extend the link/impact that you are turning if your opponents aren't extending it also. Frontlines are not extensions.

2. With summary being 3 minutes, defense you're going for needs to be in every speech.

3. Second rebuttal must answer turns from first rebuttal. You might want to also frontline defense on an argument that you want to go for, but I won't require it. If you choose to read independent offense, my threshold for extensions on that argument will be higher.

4. The earlier you begin weighing, the more likely it is that I vote for you. Weighing must be comparative and warranted. Consistency in weighing mechanisms that your partner has already introduced is a good idea. I won't evaluate weighing in second FF unless it is the only weighing in the round. Meta weigh as necessary. If I am presented two competing weighing mechanisms without any meta weighing, I will probably intervene on the link level and vote for the team with better warranting.

5. Please don't spread. If you want to go a little fast, it's fine. If I'm unable to understand you, I'll probably set my pen down or clear you. If you are going to spread, please send a speech doc.

6. Organization in a speech is important. Please signpost. Slowing down on author names will also help me out.

7. If something important comes in crossfire, it has to be in a speech for me to evaluate it. Crossfire is binding.

8. Debate how you like, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. I personally prefer a line by line summary. If both teams agree and want me to judge a different way (e.g. a lay judge), I can go for it.

9. I'll try to intervene as little as possible. If defense is read against an argument, implicated, and conceded, I will flow it through even if it's not responsive. However, my threshold for frontlining unresponsive args will be low. If you tell me it isn't responsive, I won't evaluate it. I will intervene on unwarranted arguments. If an argument is introduced without a warrant, and the warrant isn't read until a later speech, I am fairly unlikely to evaluate it. If it's conceded, I'll try not to evaluate it unless it's the only offense in the round. I may also default if there is no clear offense. I will default team that lost the coin flip if you tell me to, but otherwise I'll default first speaking team.

10. If both teams are ok with it, I will disclose speaks/results at the end of the round. If you're in the bubble round (and you tell me), you'll get high speaks.

11. Make sure your evidence says what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it, I will. If your evidence is misrepresented and significant in the round, I may drop you.

Progressive stuff:

1. I'm a bit comfortable with theory. You might want to ask me before the round if I'll be receptive to a certain shell. Extend all parts of the shell the same way you would extend a traditional arg.

2. Please don't run theory on novices.

3. I default no RVI/competing interps.

4. I'm not as comfortable with Ks, CPs or other progressive args. If you want to run these, you can, but you might need to work a little harder explaining it to me.

I enjoyed debating in high school. Try to have fun with it, and if there's anything I can do to help you enjoy it more, let me know. If there are still any questions, please ask me before the round begins. You can feel free to ask me about my decision.

Helen Huang Hire

Last changed on Tue March 14, 2023 at 12:15 PM PDT

UPDATE: Been off the circuit for a year now, take my paradigm with a grain of salt and have fun!!!! <3

Third-year medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, studying medicine. Seasonally coaching for BC Academy in Canada. Debated PF since Gr. 9.

WHO AM I?

I disclose and give oral feedback
I appreciate trigger warnings
I am a flow judge
I will be your typical tabula rasa judge and will buy any argument that is clearly warranted with logical links, stats, and impacts. This is because I have no real knowledge regarding the crux of econ, poli, etc. This is only an exception for med-related topics (just keep it realistic for pharm-based topics)
I do not like straight up card dumps that have little to no warrants
Content > style

SPEAKER POINTS (skip unless you REALLY want a speaker award because this part isn't as important)

I will start at 27 and dock points off or add points on based on how you presented your speech based on the following factors:

STYLE: Because I have been off the circuit for a while, I cannot keep up with speed but will try my best if you have a long argument (clarity > speed)
CONTENT: Based on how well your analysis and warranting is, I will add on additional points. I won't dock on content because I think that forces me to evaluate whether a response was sufficient or not, which means I have to input my thoughts into the round and I don't want to intervene. I'll dock you if your constructive is a card dump though.
MANNERS: This has never been a problem for me but any sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will be serious
TIME: If you go really overtime (like one minute longer) then it would be a problem

WHAT THIS ROUND SHOULD LOOK LIKE

Road map after second rebuttal
Please do not read theory or kritiks; I have never learned them and won't make a good decision nor evaluate it properly. But if you have any cool theories send it to my email helenh2001@gmail.com so I can have a funny dinner table conversation with my SO.
Tech > truth (Except in med/pharm topics; I accept any well warranted and linked argument)
I pay attention to crossfire but any real concession should be mentioned in speech
Second rebuttal should frontline offense; at minimum you should respond to turns
Offence is conceded if dropped in proceeding speech
If second rebuttal misses frontlining your defence, extend from first ref to first final
Answer turns in second rebuttal or first summary. Otherwise, you're making it unfair for the opponents to engage in it.
Focus on collapsing. 90% of the time, it won't be a clean win if the summary goes for every voter issue. Just point out that you've dropped because neither side can win on it.
Summary and final focus should mirror each other; I will not buy a point that was brought up in final focus but not discussed in summary; I will not extend arguments for you, so tell me what to extend.
Final focus is not for additional refutation; any new arguments read will be disregarded

HOW DO I VOTE?

90% of the time I will vote on pre-reqs, warranted weighing mech, offense, and impact calc. I find as a judge it makes it easier for me to evaluate.
Directly compare your impacts and warrants with your opponents. Explain why your impact holds more significance and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. Warranted impacts > Evidential impacts.
Weigh based off LINKS, TURNS, LOGIC, or ANALYSIS. Evidence is important, but THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY REASON WHY YOUR IMPACT HOLDS MORE SIGNIFICANCE. If you've extended your evidence to support your links and analysis, I will look extremely favourable on that.
Extend key issues/warrants from summary for it to be in final focus! You should focus on painting a narrative, so don't put too much on your plate to flow across everything.

MISC.

Since I'm a college student, feel free to ask me any questions related to medical school
I'm always down for a good banter
Connect with me to chat more about academic-related questions: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-huang-635321146/

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^

Rohan Jaisinghani Hire

Ali Jalal Hire

Animesh Joshi Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:48 PM CDT

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies.

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

Adriana Kim Hire

Last changed on Wed April 7, 2021 at 5:05 PM EDT

I debated for Durham Academy for four years.

I believe that rounds should be a safe space. Please let me know if there’s anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in round. I will not tolerate discriminatory and/or exclusive behavior.

My ballot breaks down simply—I look first at weighing, then whether or not a team is winning links into the best weighed argument. Weighing MUST have a warrant. Buzzword weighing mechanisms like scope only really make sense if both teams are reading the same impact. If you do not weigh, I will probably intervene. This means that I will vote on a well-weighed argument with a messy link OVER a conceded argument with no weighing on it.

The entire argument must be well warranted and extended for me to vote off of it, and anything in final focus must be in summary.

I do not know how to evaluate theory or Ks. I have no experience running or judging either, but I will always do my best to fairly judge the round. If there’s an egregious abuse, paragraph theory is fine.

I’ll only call for evidence if I’m explicitly told to call for it AND I feel that I need it to make my decision.

I really struggle to follow spreading. I flow by hand. If you’re going over 260 wpm, I’ll probably start to miss stuff.

If you’re reading an argument about a sensitive topic, a trigger warning is mandatory.

I presume first and I don’t shake hands. Feel free to flip without me, please preflow before the round, and especially for online debate, please set up the email chain before the round starts. If evidence takes more than 2-3 minutes to pull up/things are moving way too slow, I'll strike cards from my flow.

In general, I buy logical analytics over unwarranted evidence. I think frontlining in second rebuttal is strategic. I think weighing should start early. I like when teams collapse. I don’t like random new offensive overviews in second rebuttal. My threshold for a response probably goes down the more absurd/confusing an argument is. However, please debate how you are most comfortable. I will do my best to accommodate the round. If you have a specific question about my preferences, please ask - I probably do have an opinion but won't force you to adapt to it.

Ignore the end of Ben Oestericher's paradigm.

Feel free to ask any clarification questions before the round!

Elizabeth Kim Hire

Last changed on Tue September 7, 2021 at 8:34 PM EDT

Howdy!!

*update for 2021 season~i'm on CST so i'll be 12-13 hours ahead of EST. take this into account if you wanna spread or do something weird idk*

I debated for Lake Highland Prep for 5 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior year.

tldr; warrant, weigh, i don't shake hands, make me laugh, NO 3FF's, yes you can flip before i get there

~I evaluate arguments on the flow!

~I am a tabula rasa judge; which is fancy for I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. buttt if an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. i do not like progressive debate, sorry not sorry, i won't evaluate theory/K's or whatever. if there is a serious abuse just say it in your speech for a couple of sentences,,,warrant it, explain the abuse, and i will evaluate. you don't need to make a whole shell about it or whatever theory is idk.

~Speed is fine but don't spread please!

~If there is no offense in the round, I presume ~first speaker~ by default, not neg. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

~I go on twitter during cross lol but if it's that important say it in speech

~I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

~No new evidence in second summary (it's fine in first summary). The only exception is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine!

~Defense doesn't have to be in first summary, but i encourage it if it's important. First summary must extend turns/any offense! (This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal) Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense!!

~I think calling for ev after round is pretty interventionist lol,,, but if you really reallyyyy need me to see it i guess i'll look at it

~keep your own prep

~I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language. oh and being rude/sexist/racist/homophobic etc.

~If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, read a trigger warning please!! debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

~It's so boring and awk when card exchanges take a long time, they should take no longer than 2 minutes. If it takes too long I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time.

~Please remember to check the pronouns provided by tab!! This is so everyone is comfortable in the round and to prevent misgendering. (mine are she/her/hers)

~Have a Big Time Rush! after all, debate should be fun! wear what you want, sit or stand, idrc! please lmk if there's anything i can do to make you more comfortable in round. Oh! and if you are funny + nice, I'll give you very generous speaks, unless you're a really bad speaker

if you have questions, message me on facebook & i'll probably respond in time!

Shoutout to Max Wu bc most of this is from his paradigm!!

Pranav Konduri Hire 8 rounds

Hey!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kelly Kong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 19, 2021 at 11:00 AM EDT

dazzle me!
if you call me "your honor," i'll boost your speaks
if you flip first, i'll boost your speaks. you confident thang!
:)

Anything that doesn't violate the rules of PF or the rules of being a decent person is generally fine by me. If you don't have time to read this long paradigm, just ask in round!

Hi there! I am a former PF debater from Edgemont NY and graduated in 2020, and I currently attend Cornell University studying Industrial and Labor Relations. I'm a relatively traditional Northeast flow judge if that means anything to you (I am kinda flay but vote on the flow, big emphasis on warrants). Specifics:

- Don't be blippy because I'm not excellent at flowing and therefore might not catch something; I highly value good warrants. The less intuitive the argument, the more warranting is necessary

- I prefer you to have your camera on, if possible

- I'm tech > truth as long as there are warrants (however I will tell you if I think something is ridiculous, but it won't affect my decision)

- Bad strategic oopsies probably cap you at a 28.5

- I prefer you to speak at a pace where a speech doc shouldn't be necessary, my understanding of the round/ability to flow trades off with how fast you speak. The way you read your case/speech docs matters and contributes to your speaks

- I'm really really receptive to unconventional and creative arguments that are strategic and effectively run, high magnitude/low probability impacts are cool as well-- but use risk of offense weighing

- Also a really big fan of crafty & weird in-round strategy if executed well. I will reward with high speaks

- Terminalize all your impacts and extend all your warrants/the entire argument especially in the last speeches. Full warranting is essential to extensions-- literally pretend I've never heard the argument before.

- It's hard to vote off things I don't understand

- If your opponent's extension is bad, point it out or i will evaluate it

- Concede delinks in the speech right after to kick out of turns

- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline anything

- You can't delink yourself to kick out of turns if your opponents didn't read the delinks

- Offensive overview type stuff is fine in rebuttal if implicated in some way against the opponent's case

- I don't flow card names

- I may or may not pay attention in cross

- Defense is sticky through first summary (if unresponded to, terminal defense can be extended from rebuttal to first final focus. I think it's uneducational for debaters to win while extending through ink)

- Ten second grace period after time

- I don't have a very good understanding of progressive argumentation, nor am I very comfortable evaluating it. I'm unlikely to vote for theory unless there's abuse. ex: paraphrasing/not disclosing/the like do NOT qualify as abuse, but lack of content warning qualifies as abuse (please utilize content warnings). If anything, don't read a shell, just explain the abuse in paragraph form. I prefer substance debates, but if the round isn't that I'll do my best to evaluate everything fairly

- New weighing is fine in final focuses, but preferably earlier

- Weighing is only substantive to my ballot if it would actually sway a policy decision: ex: short circuit and magnitude weighing is substantive, "clarity of link," "timeframe," and certain theoretical "prerequisites" are not substantive unless justified to be substantive (this is a confusing point so please ask if you need clarification)

- Won't call for evidence unless asked to and my decision depends on it, and on that note, no evidence > bad evidence

- If there's no visible offense at the end of the round then I default to whoever lost the coin flip. Or, if I cannot find a way to vote on the flow I will vote with an arbitrary lay rfd, or vote for whoever I think debated better. That being said, while I intend to be tabula rasa, I will always try my best to resolve a muddled situation even if it requires some sort of minimal intervention. With that, I encourage risk of offense weighing when a situation is muddled!

- I generally have a pretty similar debate philosophy to my former coach Caspar

- Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm/decision/message me on facebook!

debate well and good luck! :))

Rithvik Reddy Koppurapu Hire 8 rounds

Anoosh Kumar Hire

Vishaal Kunta Hire

Joshua Lee Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 27, 2022 at 4:55 AM EDT

Hi there!

I debated for Acton-Boxborough for four years on the national/local circuit.

I consider myself a "mostly flow" judge because I can flow but I have a hard time doing so when the debate gets fast. Please speak at a moderate speed.

Just a few notes:

1. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing. If you're going too fast for me, I will let you know after the speech and ask you for the speech document.

2. I prefer good warranting and well-explained responses over fast and efficient rebuttals, and this will weigh somewhat in my speaker point calculations. Similarly, I am more likely to vote on the argument that has been explained well throughout the round than a turn you didn't really warrant or weigh in rebuttal that you blow up in final focus. So, if you read a turn for ten seconds in rebuttal about how X leads to economic decline and then in summary it becomes a recession and final focus it becomes 900 million people in poverty, I will still only evaluate what you said in the rebuttal - i.e. some vague decline in economic activity.

3. Your speaks will also depend a lot on the way you speak and how convincing you are. Persuasiveness is subjective but so is debate in general, and I think "public forum debate" is supposed to value speaking ability as well.

4. Crossfire is binding.

5. 2nd Rebuttal must frontline turns; otherwise, they are dropped. I also am not a fan of disads in EITHER first or second rebuttal, but you can probably trick me into thinking a disad is a turn in first rebuttal, as long as it is somewhat responsive to the opponent's case.

6. I won't call for evidence unless if it is challenged. Moreover, if I think the evidence indicts itself later on in the pdf, I will ask you about the indict just in case you have that indict frontlined - I believe that specific warranting is more important, and I understand that not all evidence is perfect and that some teams often have frontlines prepared to their evidence.

7. I think weighing is very powerful, but I have a high threshold for it. Weighing with cards/quantifications is better, and no new weighing allowed in final focus. However, weighing is sticky, so if first or second rebuttal establishes weighing that is dropped in first or second summary, then that can be extended into the final focus.

8. I am not familiar with progressive arguments. Running them in front of me is risky, but if you're feeling lucky you could try.

Yilin Li Hire 8 rounds

Daniel Liang Hire 8 rounds

Matthew Joe Liu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 14, 2021 at 10:45 AM EDT

I’m Matthew and I debated LD at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School for 4 years. I use he/him pronouns

Please put me on the chain - email: matthewliu344@gmail.com

Having the chain setup early will get you extra speaks

Online debates

- I'll be following along off the doc since audio quality isn't great all the time. If you're going to extemp arguments in your constructive, please let me know since if your opponent will have trouble flowing it then I probably will too.

- Please slow down a bit especially if it's early or late in the day/if it's a theory or tricks debate. These tend to be blippy rounds and I'm likely to miss some arguments if you're blazing through analytics at 8am

- Please have a local recording of your speeches in case you cut out/disconnect in the middle of it

General

- Be respectful to your opponent!

- Tech > truth but won’t vote on things that I don’t understand even if they're conceded

- Well-developed and explained arguments almost always beat blippy and underwarranted ones

- Willing to vote on almost everything excluding oppressive arguments, arguments about your opponent’s appearance, and adhoms

- Cheating is an instant loss. Evidence disputes/clipping stop the round, if the accuser is right then they win the round and the offender gets an L0 and vice versa if they’re wrong. I will be following along and the round will be stopped even if an accusation isn't made if someone is cheating

- Technical proficiency, strategic vision, and content knowledge will get you high speaks

- Extensions should have warrants unless an argument is dropped

- Content warnings are good, use your intuition when deciding whether or not to give one

- Don’t like strategies that are designed to minimize clash

Defaults

- I will attempt to adopt the defaults by both debaters. If both debaters act like theory is drop the debater/competing interps or act like extinction outweighs, I'll adopt those. However, if one debater points out that paradigm issues haven't been read on a theory shell then I'll evaluate the shell as such. It's in your best interest to be specific and explicit with how you want an argument evaluated

- Truth testing

- No judge kick

- No RVIs, drop the debater, competing interps

- Presumption affirms, permissibility negates

Miscellaneous

- Please time yourself and your opponent

- Prep for CX is ok but CX for prep isn’t

- CX is binding, don't cheat

- If you can end your speech early and still win the debate please do it

Francesca Lupi Hire 8 rounds None

Ritvik Mahendra Hire

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

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

PSHS '20, UT '24

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

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

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

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

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

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

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

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

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

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

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

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

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

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

LD/CX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asher Moll Hire 8 rounds

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tori Newman-Menendez Hire None

Benjamin Oestericher Hire

Last changed on Mon April 19, 2021 at 2:47 PM EDT

Hello! I’m Ben and I debated for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. The biggest of shoutouts goes to Mr. Huth and the whole Bronx Science team. I am probably best viewed as a pretty traditional flow judge. If you want the details:

I don’t believe that defense needs to be in first summary to answer any argument that was not frontlined in second rebuttal. If it was frontlined, then you need to answer it in summary. Turns should be extended in first summary if you want me to evaluate them as offense. Don’t extend through ink.

You do NOT have to frontline defense in second rebuttal. I personally rarely did so and I often believe it is unstrategic to do so. That being said, take whatever strategy you believe is most strategic for your team in the round.

Weighing is very important to me. I think it is important to weigh early (preferably rebuttal but no later than summary) and have consistent weighing throughout the round. Try to explain your weighing instead of just repeating it. Saying you outweigh on scope, timeframe, magnitude, etc without explaining why doesn’t mean anything. I look to weighing first when I evaluate my ballot -- if you are winning the weighing I will look to your arguments first. I personally believe that probability is often the strongest form of weighing as no matter how large your impacts -- if you don’t win your links they can’t materialize. Focus on winning your links and explaining how you access them better than your opponents. I am a technical judge but I care a lot about truth value, and my threshold for a response to a high-magnitude low-probability argument is pretty low.

If you don’t weigh, I will be forced to intervene which is very sad.

I default to looking at impacts globally. I will drop America First framing in a heartbeat.

I care about your overall cohesion in your speeches. Having a single narrative that you defend over the course of the round is more persuasive to me than a set of many arguments that change with each speech.

I believe that theory is only justified in instances of significant abuse where there is no other mechanism to check back against the abuse. I will try my best to evaluate any argument presented to me on the flow, but I am not good at evaluating progressive argumentation including theory and Ks. I am inclined to believe that they are bad for Public Forum, but that’s just my opinion. I always want the round to be a safe space for all debaters.

I can handle speed. I debated fast and I can handle fast debate. That being said, don’t sacrifice quality for quantity and don’t speak so quickly that your words are not clear. Don’t spread.

I will only call for evidence if I believe it is both a) important to my overall decision in the round and b) was cast into doubt by the opposing team.

Don’t shake my hand. Virtually or in person. Yes, virtual handshakes are a thing.

You will get 30 speaker points if you find an earthworm (or any worm for that matter) and place it on the head of Adriana Kim at a tournament. Please show me photographic proof before the round.

Good luck :) Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round.

Jasper Ou Hire 8 rounds

Abhi Patel Hire

Jirayu Paueksakon Hire 8 rounds None

Andrew Peterson Hire

Siddharth Pinnamaneni Hire

Abhishek Pratap Hire

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

Elkins '20 | TAMU

Email: a9pratap@gmail.com

messenger is preferred

i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit

General

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

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

- Signposting and weighing are essential

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

Progressive stuff

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

Rebuttal

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

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

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

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

Summary/Final

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other

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

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

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

Do not

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

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

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

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

- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

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

Sujan Rachuri Hire 8 rounds None

Dhruva Rangan Hire

Last changed on Mon March 7, 2022 at 3:35 PM EDT

I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.

General Stuff:

I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.
I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.
You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.
I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.
I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.

Things I Like:

Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.
I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.
Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.

I also believe that weighing comes in tiers: you need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.
I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.

Things I Do Not Like:

I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.
A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.
If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.

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

Aadhavaarasan Raviarasan Hire 8 rounds

Harry Ren Hire

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 10:34 AM EDT

Hello, I am not judging at Harvard 2022, if you get me on tabroom for R1, there is a mistake. I have already emailed tab. you will get a new judge shortly.

(3:34pm)

GLHF

__________________________________________________________

he/him/his

For HDC: Please be mindful of rhetoric when responding to race and structural violence arguments;

to summarize my paradigm: a dropped argument is true, collapse, and please weigh. I will not evaluate any new arguments brought up in second final focus, in fact, summary is a little to late to be reading new defense. If its in ff, it must be in summary as well. Also, if you are first rebuttal, I would prefer that you don't go over your own case as no one has responded to it yet. Additionally, there is no need to tell me if the framing is CBA/util.

Also TIME YOURSELVES and also TIME YOUR OPPONENTS. sometimes im not looking at my stopwatch so its on you to keep your opponents honest.

If you go over by 30+ seconds and I have to cut you off, I will dock speaks.

For Online Debate:

Please turn on your cameras.

____________________________________________________________________________

Debated 4 years on the national circuit at Cranbrook in MI. Currently a sophomore at Carnegie Mellon (statistics & machine learning)

Email chain: harry.jia.ren@gmail.com

General

-Speed is fine but don't spread, I'll clear you if needed.

-Roadmap and signpost (i guess if someone else in the panel hates roadmaps, then you don't need one)

-A dropped argument is a true argument (if its extended properly)

-Any offense needs to be in both sum and FF. Extend warrants and impacts too, not just author names and tags.

-Please collapse

-Theory is fine if its used to check back real abuse. I default to competing interps/yes rvi. I will evaluate K's but I am less confident with my ability to handle them properly(I've only ever done PF). No tricks.

-I presume whoever lost the toss unless you give me reasons to do something else

-Trigger warnings are necessary

-I am personally not a fan of probability weighing. If you win the links, then the probability is high...

Rebuttal

-2nd rebuttal must Fl turns.

-My threshold for responses against second rebuttal offensive overviews will be low.

Second half

-First summary should extend defense. you don't have to go for everything, just one piece of dropped TD is enough.

-Weighing must start in summary.

-All offense must be weighed

Anuraag Routray Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 1, 2023 at 3:14 PM CDT

Preface/TLDR: I haven't judged a whole ton since I debated in 2020 but I'm a general "flow judge." PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont go fast, just collapse well and engage with responses, clash is good! TBH: treat me like a lay judge, use the lay case yall got prepared please

email: anuraagroutray@utexas.edu

Experience: I debated in HS in PF as the R of Cinco ranch RT. I did pf from 2016-2020 in a ton of locals and on the national circuit, and was successful, so maybe that helps you get an idea of my experience. Specific things that might be relevant that I stole from someone else's paradigm:

1) I think I'm tech over truth. if something is false I think it's pretty easy to just warrant that with your own words in an analytic or ev, but you need to say it and i'll accept that as defense.

2) If you go fast I probably won't catch it, sorry I'm not good w speed ???? please signpost hella. excellent signposting will always get a 30 from me

3) I never ran progressive arguments so your mileage may vary, and my limited knowledge of progressive stuff has all disappeared so if you choose to run these arguments I guess just explain it well? I'm really unsure of how to evaluate these arguments to be honest so probably best to just avoid them.

4) My advice: please, please, please don't go for everything just to flex; collapse and spend time weighing.

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

8) don't be annoying in cross; there's a clear line between being aggressive and being mean and if you cross that line your speaks will reflect that. make cross productive

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

10) don't hide behind evidence; if someone reads an analytical response that has a logical warrant behind it, it isn't enough to tell me to prefer you because you have some random author on your side, engage with your opponents

11) If neither side has any semblance of offense or risk of offense at the end of the round, i presume first speaker.

12) if you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc = L + bad speaks imo. it should go without saying to just not be a bad person.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me @ anuraagroutray@utexas.edu

Yukiho Semimoto Hire 8 rounds

Lindsiann Shi Hire

Alina Shivji Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 15, 2023 at 1:05 PM EDT

TL;DR: warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain: Alina.shivji1@gmail.com

SPEED

Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS

Feel free to read them. That said, these arguments don’t typically function well in PF due to time constraints. So, I do prefer substance in PF. If you do debate progressively, note that crossfire and flex prep serves as accountability on your advocacy. My default is reasonability. If you want me to approach these args from a different standpoint, tell me.

Feel free to read arguments about any of the -isms. But, make sure in the process, you’re not otherizing. For example, if you are not a Muslim woman who identifies with the LGBT+ community, don’t read arguments about it. Also, if you are reading any arguments concerning sexual harassment/assault/suicide/etc., I expect a trigger warning BEFORE the round.

EXTENSIONS

I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.

Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined

FRONTLINING

respond to offensive responses ie turns and terminal defense before you access weighing in the second rebuttal

WEIGHING

Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (metaweighing).

Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until the second FF.

INTERVENTION

I try not to intervene as much as possible. If there’s no offense in the round and its a policy-oriented topic, I’ll default neg aka the status quo. If it's not a policy-oriented topic, I'll default towards what's most probable.

I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. If the evidence is miscut, I won’t evaluate it and I will penalize your speaks for it.

TECH > TRUTH

If you didn't say it in the round, don't expect me to evaluate it regardless of how "true" the argument may be. That said, use common sense and have good judgement. If you say something incorrect, it won't influence my decision, but I will call you out after the round.

IMPLICATE!

The link to an argument matters but if you don't tell me HOW it fits in the round, I won't know what to do with it. So, tell me what argument serves as turns/terminal defense, why, and what that means for you/your opponents in the round.

Raj Solanki Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 6:10 AM CDT

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

~~30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptop~~I will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.
My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument
dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

"I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want
Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.
There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.
I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.
Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

take flex prep if needed

Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

Max Steiner Hire

Serkan Tan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 12:04 PM PDT

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Teddy Tawil Hire

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 1:49 PM EDT

Hi! I did PF for 4 years at Hunter (2016-2020) & am a flow judge with pretty conventional preferences. Do what you do best & have fun! I will try to be nice with speaks & give lots of feedback.

Short Osterweis update (April 2023)

I don't have too many super-specific parliamentary preferences!

I will make sure to pulling arguments through from the leader/constructive speeches (the first two) to the rebuttal speeches (the last two) even if they aren't mentioned in the member speeches (the middle two).

If you have other questions, please feel free to ask them!

Pretty important preferences

- At the end of a round, if I'm choosing between a larger impact and a smaller one, even if the links into large one aren't won as cleanly, I will probably vote for the larger one. In the context of the round, that means it's a good idea to focus on winning the weighing debate.

- To win an argument, it must be in summary and final focus. I'm not a huge stickler on what does or doesn't count as an extension, but you should at least give a basic overview of the link(s) and the impact. Also sorry but "extend Doofenshmirtz 2019" isn't an extension. What does Doofenshmirtz say?

- Depth > breadth. I'd rather hear one or two really good, nuanced arguments than a lot of meh ones, and the same with responses. I love to judge rounds where there's a lot of engagement on a few points, rather than rounds when there's a only bit of engagement on a lot of arguments.

- Well-explained logical reasoning beats a card, a card beats an example.

- I'm receptive to unconventional strategies. For example, going for a turn is often super smart. I am also a big fan of arguments that are creative with what the counterfactual world looks like. If you plan on running an argument like this, see [a].

- Any defense you want me to evaluate should be in second summary, only turns need to be in first. In other words, you don't have to extend link responses in first summary for me to consider them.

- Tech > truth mostly. I won't intervene against an argument just because it's out there. That said, for more on this, see [b].

- Here are some things I think will help you win: Overview responses that apply to an entire case, turns, weighing, and collapsing rather than spreading yourself thin in the later speeches. For more on what I do and don't consider weighing, see [c].

- I don't love theory or other sorts of progressive arguments, but I am willing to evaluate them. That said, I'm not super familiar with them, so if you read them please explain and implicate everything very clearly. For more of my thoughts on theory, see [d].

- I don't like to intervene, but I reserve the right to or severely dock speaks if something truly bad happens. I can't really define what something truly bad would look like, but I know it when I see it. Think: something extremely rude or offensive.

Less important preferences

- If no one has any offense, my default is to vote for the first-speaking team. I'll also evaluate arguments that I should default in some other way too, though.

- Cross may influence your speaks, but it doesn't go on my flow. If someone makes a concession in cross, please bring it up in a speech.

- If I don't have a framework I default util.

- I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's challenged, but not just because it sounds sketchy.

- If you're planning to go around or over 250 wpm, please provide me and your opponents with a speech doc.

- I'm happy to skip cross if both teams agree.

- Per NSDA rules, fabricated evidence is an auto-drop. Evidence that's merely misconstrued will be judged on a case-by-case basis, I'll probably just drop that card.

More detailed thoughts on a few topics I mentioned earlier

[a] On creative arguments: Again, I'm pretty flexible as to what is or isn't topical, you just need to win that your vision of the world is the most likely real-world implementation of the topic (remember: I'm tech > truth). For example, if the topic is whether we should lift Venezuelan sanctions, I'm happy to evaluate an argument saying lifting sanctions is inevitable and doing so now is better/worse, or that sanctions will be lifted then re-imposed and that’s good/bad.

[b] On when I'm not strictly tech > truth: If the opponents tell me to gut check an improbable impact (e.g. nuclear war when mutually assured destruction & hotlines have prevented it in the past), then I won't give you access to it if you don't have strong warranting and just repeat that some random author says it'll happen. Also, if you're going to read high-magnitude, low-probability impacts, it's probably a good idea to meta-weigh and tell me why magnitude is a more important weighing mechanism than probability (I won't give you arguments for this, but they're definitely out there).

[c] On what is and isn't weighing: Here are some examples of things that I DO consider weighing —

- "Our argument impacts the whole world and theirs just impacts X country/region"

- "Our impact happens in the long-term and theirs doesn't"

- "If our argument happens, then we also solve for their impact in X way"

- "Their link chain is super long so it's inherently tenuous"

And some things I DON'T consider weighing, and why —

- Saying your argument is more probable because you think I'll think it's more plausible... you need a reason

- Saying your argument impacts more people because of some "big number" card that isn't specific to your impact, like the 900 million people go into poverty if a recession hits card

- Jargon without an explanation

- Saying that because the impact of some argument is extinction, it automatically outweighs everything. You need to go a step further: why is even a .1% chance of extinction worse than a 50% chance that 50 million people go into poverty, or whatever else the competing impact is?

[d] On theory/progressive arguments:

- I'm receptive to arguments that introducing theory first (or just frivolous theory in general) is bad.

- I also believe paraphrasing is a good norm and don't have strong feelings on disclosure. I try to be somewhat tabula rasa, so you can definitely convince me to vote against these personal views. That said, reading these arguments just probably isn't a good use of your time: you lose time on the substance debate to read something I've said I don't love, and give your opponents lots of potential offense in the process (introducing theory first bad arguments, turns to your shell, & RVIs). I wouldn't, but ultimately it's up to you.

- Also, my bar for winning drop the debater theory is much higher than my bar for winning drop the argument theory. You need to convince me that there's real abuse going on and win your argument quite cleanly.

That's all. Good luck! Email: teddytawil99@gmail.com.

Aatreya Tewary Hire

Last changed on Sat December 2, 2023 at 5:19 AM EDT

email: aatreyatew@utexas.edu

Experience: I debated in HS in PF as the T of Cinco ranch RT. I did pf from 2016-2020 in a ton of locals and on the national circuit, and was successful, so maybe that helps you get an idea of my experience. Specific things that might be relevant that I stole from someone else's paradigm: