Tabroom.com

The Online Summer Open

2020 — Online, MA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rishi Ajmera Hire 8 rounds

Tanvi Bhave Hire 4 rounds

Shabbir Bohri Hire 8 rounds

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

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

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

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Debate Update:

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

PF Overview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stefan Boone Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 23, 2022 at 5:30 AM EDT

add me to the chain: stefan.boone12@gmail.com

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be 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 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. 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. (However, dropped defense sticks to infinity if it goes unresponded to by the other team)

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 and responding to frontlines that are made, 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 foci 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:

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 interepretations 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:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

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 neg on presumption unless warranting given for a different way of presuming.

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

i am mostly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - ill give the highest the tournament allows me to

I cannot keep up with speeds over around 900 words /four minute. Give a speech doc if u plan on going faster.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Lucas Bowerman Hire 17 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read trigger warnings.

I don’t care what you wear.

Time yourself please.

Speed:

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

Speaker Points:

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

Round Strategy:

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

Cross:

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

Progressive Argumentation:

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

Evidence/Evaluation:

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

Signpost and Roadmap please.

I presume neg

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

Janya Budaraju Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 2, 2020 at 5:38 AM PDT

I have about 4 years of (primarily PF) debating experience and a lot of informal judging (all events) experience. She/her.

Winning Rounds

Here's how to win my ballot:

1. Use a lot of evidence, and don't falsify cards. I will call for them if asked to, and it's something I'll drop you over. Evidence should have a logical warrant, but if your opponent doesn't question the logic I'll buy it anyway. Use NSDA rules when reading and cutting cards. Read trigger warnings if applicable.

2. Weigh extensively. This means you explicitly lay out for me why I should prefer your arguments over your opponent's. It's a long round and you probably aren't winning on every point, so don't tell me that you have turned every one of their arguments and have NOTHING to weigh against unless you're sure about it.

3. Engage fully with your opponent's arguments. Address the links, nuance, warrants, all aspects-- don't just read a generic block to the constructive and move on. Just hearing two arguments that are polar opposites doesn't help me decide-- why is your link // logic stronger?

4. Structure your speeches in a way I can follow. Please (PLEASE) signpost so I always know what you are referring to on the flow. The speeches should build logically off each other to create a detailed worldview/narrative that is consistent through your speeches.

Other Notes

1. I don't have a lot of experience with technical arguments (eg theory, Ks, etc), and don't typically like them. I think debate should be accessible regardless of whether a team has a coach and prefer arguments that are understandable to the general public, so avoid them if you can!

2. I do not tolerate discrimination or prejudice in any form. If you make a comment or argument that is ableist, homophobic, racist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic I will tank your speaks and depending on the severity drop you. Be mindful of pronouns.

3. I don't flow cross, but it will matter for speaks if relevant. This means you should be assertive, but being rude, obnoxious, condescending, etc. will lead to low speaker points. Please be kind to each other, we're all here to learn and grow.

4. Ask me or email me if you have questions! My email is budaraju.janya@gmail.com :))

Holden Carrillo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 10:31 AM PDT

Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. In my second year doing parli at Berkeley and won NPTE last year. I coached LD at James Logan last year and currently coach parli at Campolindo.

Public Forum

TL;DR:

I'm two years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you.

Front-Half:

Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 275 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
Evidence: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
Cross: I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.
Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.

Back-Half:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.
Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If nobody weighs then I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
Final Focus: I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.

Progressive Debate:

Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo. Love good links.
Tricks: Big fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.

Other:

I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
Big fan of TKO's
Big fan of content warnings
Big fan of tag-teaming
Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

+ 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
+ 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
+ 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
+ 0.1 for every CX skipped
+ 0.1 for every swear word
- 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, CC good, wipeout, or any other fun impact turn
Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
Instant 30's if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive

I know this is short, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round

Parliamentary

TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round.

Case:

Love it, I'm a case debater primarily.
Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Why does your impact matter, go the extra step during prep.
I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read.
I love lots of warranting.
Go for turns.
Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.

Theory:

Good with theory, probably the most comfortable with my decisions here.
MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won't vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it's a super violent violation.
I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
I really don't understand the norm of no RVI's in parli. If a team runs theory on you, GO FOR RVI'S!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
I'll default to CI's and DTD if no paradigm issues are read.
I find myself leaning towards text > spirit and potential abuse > actual abuse but can be convinced for either side

Kritiks:

While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it.
When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
Non generic links >>> but this isn't necessary.
I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. T-FW/case/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's what I have the most experience in)

Other:

Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then I'll stop flowing.
Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
Perms: If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
Condo's good, but you can convince me that condo's bad.
Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
Big fan of content warnings
Big fan of tag-teaming
Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
Collapse. Please.
Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
Repeat your texts or say them slowly.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

+ 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
+ 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
+ 0.1 for every swear word
- 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)

As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

LD/Policy

TL;DR: I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing are important. I'm most comfortable with LARP and theory, but overall I'm chill with most things that go in round and I will vote on virtually anything.

Quick Prefs:

1 - LARP

1 - Theory

3 - Tricks

3 - K v. Case/T-FW

4 - K v. K

5 (Strike) - Phil

General:

Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in as many speeches as possible, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 275 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech
Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
Big fan of content warnings
Big fan of tag-teaming
Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
Collapse. Please.
Condo's good, but it's easy to convince me that condo's bad.

LARP:

Love it, definitely the most confident in my decisions here.
Most of my debate experience is through util! Obviously this doesn't mean that I'll drop you if you run something outside of it, but don't assume that I'll know whatever FW you run, even if it's common in LD.
I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are.
I love lots of warranting.
Go for turns.
Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.

Theory:

Definitely prefer theory over most other prefiat arguments.
1AR theory is fine, but I'll listen to warrants otherwise/arguments on how to evaluate it. I probably won't vote for theory after the 1AR unless it's a super violent violation.
I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other side shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
From my understanding, going for RVI's isn't super common in LD/policy. If someone runs theory on you, go for RVI's!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
I'll default to CI's and DTD if no paradigm issues are read.
I find myself leaning towards text > spirit and potential abuse > actual abuse but can be convinced for either side

Kritiks:

While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it.
When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
The more links the better, preferably have them not generic, but this isn't necessary.
I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. T-FW/case/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's what I have the most experience in)

Other:

Most of my tricks experience is in PF, so maybe LD/policy is different, but tricks are generally good. While you can totally run them on me, my threshold for responses are low if you're hitting a less experienced team.
I have so little exposure to phil, please don't run it on me. It doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, but when I do evaluate it I can't guarantee a correct ballot.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

+ 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
+ 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
+ 0.1 for every swear word
- 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn

As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Maria Cheng Hire 8 rounds

Sahil Chiniwala Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 16, 2022 at 5:16 AM CDT

Email: chiniwalas@gmail.com

About Me:

Coppell '21 | UT Austin '25 | He/Him

Coach for Coppell High School

Debate Basics:

1. Extend your arguments, please... I hate having to vote teams down because of this, but it is the simplest thing to do and one of the easiest ways to make sure you don't lose a ballot. If you are confused as to how to do this, please ask me before the round.

1a. An extension just needs to include the claim and warrant of an argument. If you want to include the author/cite and the full tagline, then go for it. However, the bare minimum of an extension is claim+warrant.

1b. Regarding the extension of progressive arguments. I think that there is an inherent advantage to a theory/(non-topical) critical/ROB argument compared to case/substance-based arguments so if you read one of the former arguments in a constructive speech you must extend said argument in the rebuttal (this is not necessary for the latter).

2. Make sure that you have some form of offense at the end of the round. It is really easy to get caught up talking about one point and making sure that you win it, but make sure that said argument is going to help you win the round and isn't purely defensive.

3. Defense is not sticky. I don't want to sound like an old man, but back in my day we had 2-minute summaries and we still had to extend our defense. If you can't make it happen in a 3-minute summary, read fewer arguments.

4. I'm a little more lenient with impact terminalization (i.e. poverty decreases by 2%, saves 20 million lives per degree increase, etc.) but note that this makes it easier for your opponents to turn your impact and it makes it harder for you to do impact calculus. Also, while I won't dock you directly, if your opponents point out that your impact is vague/unclear it might make me less likely to vote for you.

5. I would like to think I am pretty decent at evaluating theory and other progressive arguments, but slow down a little if you are going to be reading something that you think is hard to understand. When in doubt, run it by me before the round (email or just ask). That being said, I do have certain beliefs (disclosure good, paraphrase bad) that won't affect the round unless you ask me to vote on reasonability (instead of competing interpretations).

6. Evidence ethics are important, but I won't verify evidence unless one team explicitly tells me to do so. I hate calling for/having to read the evidence, so if I can find a way out of it (without intervening) then I will definitely try to do so. Misrepresenting evidence is a really easy way to lose a round if your opponents call it out and give me an independent voting issue. Without an IVI, I will just drop the evidence from the round if I find it is miscut.

7. I am okay with speed, but as I said, if you are reading something super progressive, then slow down. Other than that, if you are going to spread, then send a speech doc ahead of time.

8. I am tech over truth. The exception is if you say something racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise exclusionary.

9. If you have any other questions, just ask me. I'd like to think I am a nice person (although Shabbir might disagree) and I'm much more likely to be happy if you asked at my preferences instead of just guessing.

For Novices:

Pay attention primarily to 1, 1a, 2, and 4. I can answer any other questions you have before or after the round.

If you have any questions about debate (theory or progressive arguments specifically) please shoot me an email and I'd be happy to answer any that you have!

Brett Cryan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 7:19 PM MDT

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

TLDR: I will vote on anything. except arguments about things that didn't happen inside the round, although disclosure is fine.

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

Not voting on call outs. Not my business.

random thoughts:

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

--- In the absence of paradigm issues on my flow, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.

--- K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

--- I default to judgekick.

--- I have heard a concerning amount of people saying "you cannot win a perm without a deficit" lately. This is absurd. The neg has the burden of competition. In the circumstances in a counterplan debate where neither the aff nor the neg has offense due to a perm, I vote aff. For example, if the neg goes for a consult NATO counterplan and the 2AR goes for "do the plan + consult NATO on other issues", the aff wins even without a deficit insofar as the 2NR does not clearly delineate offense vs the perm. There is no risk of offense for either side, but that means the plan is the logically safest option, as it is less of a deviation from the status quo than the counterplan.

Jasper Vikas Datta Hire 8 rounds

Danielle Davenport Hire 8 rounds

Ishan Dubey Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:16 AM EDT

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com .

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Tarun Eisen Hire 8 rounds

Nathan Z Fair Hire 5 rounds None

Reagan Robert Fournier Hire 3 rounds

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

Prologue - Nuts and Bolts of My Judging

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

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

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

Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1 - My General Debate Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 - Affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3 - Topicality (Not Framework)

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4 - Non-T Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5 - Counterplans

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6 - Ks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke William Jones Hire 8 rounds

Thomas Ik-Hyun Kim Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 9, 2023 at 6:30 AM EDT

I debated LD and PF in hs, APDA in uni. Currently studying applied math, biology, and computational medicine at Johns Hopkins

Pronouns: He/Him

Email Chain/Contact: ikhyunkim2138@gmail.com | Facebook

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quick Prefs

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: For PF teams, I am comfortable with Ks, Theory, etc. just execute it well...please

1-2: K/LARP
3-4: Phil/T/Theory
5-6: Tricks (please just strike me)

It seems like there is a tendency to pref based on speaks given so here are some quick stats on that

Avg Aff Speaks: 28.9
Avg Neg Speaks: 28.8
Avg Overall Speaks: 28.8
Side Skew: 50.575% Aff, 49.425% Neg

1st Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.8
2nd Speaker Avg Speaks: 28.7
Side Skew: 42.500% Aff, 57.500% Neg (idek what's going on here tbh)

Avg Speaks: 29.1

Last Updated: 10.22.2022

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defaults

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I default to truth-testing

• I default to semantics > pragmatics

• I default to epistemic modesty but I don't mind using epistemic confidence; just warrant why I should.

• I default to competing interps. Feel free to run RVIs when deemed appropriate but warrant why I should err towards accepting the RVI.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-T

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• No matter what you do, please have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot else I will likely struggle in terms of framing the debate on both sides. Make sure you explain how your case functions in the round and explain why it's important through the ROB/J/S. That said, explain why we should reject/interpret the resolution differently.

• Aff, please respond to TVA as too many rounds with these types of affs have been lost because of a dropped interp or dropped TVA. Conversely, neg, please run TVA on these types of cases and it will make your work a lot easier if you win it. However, TVA is not enough for you to win the round.

• Cross is binding for me as I do believe that you can garner links/DAs off of the performance of either you and or your opponent even if your evidence says something else. That said, I'd like to emphasize that for these debates that the form of the evidence presented becomes far less restricted and there isn't some inherent hierarchy between them so don't disregard them.

• The permutation tends to be more awkward to both understand and evaluate in these debates so I'd suggest that you overexplain the perm to make it clear. This includes how you sequence the perm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Ks that only link to the aff’s FW and not to their advocacy feel awkward to me, so take that with a grain of salt.

• I default to perms being a test of competition rather than advocacy. You can try to change this, but you'll have to overexplain to me what it means for a perm to function as advocacy and clearly characterize the advocacy of the perm.

• PF teams, I love hearing Ks but only if they are well done. This means you should know what you are talking about and have a deep understanding of the literature you are reading. That said, please don't be a prick by reading a K in front of a team that clearly has no experience with progressive debate (just use your common sense, it's not that hard to figure this out).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T/Theory

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I don’t have defaults w.r.t. to voter questions such as DTD vs DTA, fairness/education being a voter, etc. It is YOUR job to tell me why your shell is a voting issue.

• I don’t particularly have an issue with RVIs. Feel free to go for an RVI, but I will need convincing on why you get them in the first place, characterize/construct it for me, etc.

• Please don't run frivolous theory in front of me. If the round becomes messy because of it, then your speaks will suffer.

• PF teams, while I am a supporter of theory in PF, please please please don't read shells unless there is/are an actual abuse story behind them. If not, your speaks will suffer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LARP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• I generally am not a fan of conditional counterplans especially since I feel like the neg time skew arguments can be really strong. That said, I am fine with listening to them and will vote on them just please don't be dodgy by not clearly answering whether the counterplan is conditional or not.

• If the neg is running a conditional counterplan, I won't kick it unless it's clear that the counterplan is kicked. This means that just because squo is better than aff doesn't mean I default to voting neg if it wasn't made clear that the conditional counterplan is kicked.

• My position on perms is the same in LARP strategies as it is for Ks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Phil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• If you are comfortable doing so, feel free to message me on FaceBook or email me if you want to ask if I know your philosopher well. Otherwise, don't assume that I am well-read up on the specific philosophy that you're reading and do the work of walking me through with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tricks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

... <- this summarizes my thoughts and feelings about tricks, take that as you will

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Points of Interest

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Aff/Pro should have a speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Flight 2 should enter the room at Flight 2 start time.

• If both sides are fine with it, I’m fine with granting flex prep. Don’t be rude about it, or else your speaks may suffer. Don’t take too long flashing prep unless you want your prep docked along with your speaks

• Engaging with the tagline alone ≠ engaging with the argument or the card. This is a huge pet peeve of mine so please don't just engage with the tagline but engage with the internal warranting of the cards being presented. Cards don't exist simply to back up the claims made by taglines but they have within them their own layers of argumentation which is centralized by a thesis that links to the tagline. TL;DR respect what the authors are actually saying especially given that probably over 80% of your speech is their words verbatim.

• If your speech includes abbreviations or acronyms, please explain them first. Never assume that I know what they mean.

• While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, I will award +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.

• I tend to make facial expressions that reflect how well I am processing an argument when it's being read i.e. if I am confused then I'll look confused and if I think the argument is good then my face will show this.I apologize in advance if my expressions confuse you; strike me if this is an issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concluding Remarks

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you have any questions for me before the round starts about my paradigm, please ask after all the debaters are in the room so I don't have to repeat myself. Quick shoutouts/other paradigms that may be worth your time looking at of those who have influenced me as a debater, judge, and a person include Anne-Marie Hwang, Adam Tomasi, Sim Guerrero-Low, Michael Koo, Martin Sigalow, and Annie Wang I am more than happy to explain my decision whether it be in person after the round or through email/social media. Thanks for reading, good luck and have fun!

Ben Kirsch Hire 8 rounds

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

bskirsch@umich.edu

Hackley '21 | Umich '25

Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.

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

--- PF ----

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

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

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

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

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

--- Policy ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun with it and be nice to each other.

Anita Li Hire 8 rounds

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

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

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

Some things I like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!

Theories/Ks

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

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

Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

Arjun Lingala Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 11:55 AM EDT

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Ian Mackey-Piccolo Hire 8 rounds

Avaneesh Mallela Hire 8 rounds None

Jack Miller Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 4, 2022 at 9:52 AM CDT

Lay Debate

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is Jack Miller, I've been a LD debater for 4 years. I've qualled to NSDA nationals twice, qualled to TOC twice, and placed top 3 in lots of different national circuit tourneys. I care less about what you read and more about how you read it; idc what the framing and contentions are as long as its executed well. Just win the flow and I'll vote for you.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args
-LBL>large overviews that just concede args (i.e. please dont give a 2nr where you just extend everything thru ink and say "voter" a lot)
-Framing isnt a voter, you need to win contention level offense under it otherwise its just a presumption ballot.

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

Goodluck and have fun!

Circuit Judging

About Me

Hey everyone! For those of you who couldn't tell, my name is, in fact, not Pegasus Mitusbishi Fitzgerald - it's Jack Miller. I am currently a rising senior from a small school in Oklahoma (ACCS). My decisions in debate very much center around strategy, so I've read a very eclectic range of arguments—everything ranging from a myriad of phil affs, to trix and friv theory, to pess and debate bad—so I am happy to evaluate whatever type of round you want.

Ideological Overview

One of my strongest beliefs in debate is that the flow is the sole determiner of who should win the round, so my goal as a judge will always be to render the most objective and equitable decision possible. I don't ever want a debater to feel like they have to accommodate to me—read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the round presented in front of me. Of course, I am not omniscient so I naturally understand some arguments more than others (i.e. I am probably the worst at evaluating larp vs larp), but I will always consciously attempt to detach myself from any biases or predispositions I have. In summary, you can read whatever arguments you want as long as you win them on the flow and implicate them as justifications for voting in a particular way.

I don't care how fast you go, but if I can't understand you, I will shout clear. I would also prefer if you included analytics in docs since it ensures with certainty that I won't any miss arguments, but if you decide not to, I'll still do my best to toggle on my inner flow-bot.

Judges who I've always liked and strive to judge similar to: JP, Castillo, Taj, Sam Azbel, Tom Evnen, Becca Traber, Scopa, Aqin, Leedrew, Austin Broussard, Joey Georges, and pretty much every other tab judge on the circuit. If you like the judges listed above, you will hopefully like me.

Quick Pref Shortcut

Prefs are hell to do at most tourneys, so if you are feeling time-crunched or lazy, here's a TLDR as to what I feel most comfortable evaluating:
1. Phil, Theory/T, K, K Affs, Trix.
2. Policy (this is for policy vs policy; I feel very comfortable evaluating policy vs Phil/K and don't lean in either direction)

Specific Arguments

Kritiks

Overview: I've read a lot of Ks throughout my career and think they have the potential to be very strategic. The lit bases/Ks I'm familiar with are disability (Mollow, Fritsch, St. Pierre, Hughes, Campbell, and pretty much every other author that is read in debate), Deleuze, Baudrillard, Berardi, Edelman, Lacan, Setcol, Cap, Security, Afropessimism, Grove, Bataille, Weyhelie, Cybernetics, Onticide, Virilio, Baldwin, James, and utopian authors like Munoz. HOWEVER, you should not take this as an excuse for not explaining arguments - I'll still have the same threshold for extensions as normal.

Specific Preferences:
-Word PIKs are strategic
-Not a huge fan of author indicts or other ad homs.
-

K Affs

Theory

Overview: I read lots of theory throughout my career and think it's incredibly strategic in a lot of circumstances. Here are some of my specific thoughts on theory:
1. I am of the belief that there is no such thing as friv theory - if you win a theoretical arg then it's just as valid as any other. However, feel free to make arguments to the contrary in the round and persuade me otherwise.
2. If you are going for reasonability, PLEASE provide a reasonability brightline! Otherwise, I don't know how to evaluate what is reasonable, and I'll probably be very compelled by arguments as to why I should reject reasonability without a brightline.
3. RVIs are coherent and people should read them more often. I don't know why they have such a negative stigma to be honest. In most cases, they waste the opponent's time at worst, and can win the round at best.

Trix: Like I mentioned in the ideological overview, I will evaluate any argument with a warrant (no matter how bad it is), so yes I will evaluate trix. I've gone for a lot of tricky arguments and honestly find this style of debate to be super fun in moderation. Here's some things to keep in mind:
1. I am a philosophy geek and am particularly interested in things like formal logic and skeptical problems, so there's a good chance that I've read entire articles about whatever trick you are going for. This is not to say that you should under-explain arguments; I am simply saying that you shouldn't feel pressured to shy away from esoteric arguments or condense claims into incoherence for the sake of explanatory ease.

Policy: This is the style of debate I am least familiarity with because I never enjoyed reading these arguments myself, so I have much less first-hand experience with it. However, I do still feel very familiar with the Policy vs K/Phil debate, and think extinction outweighs is one of the stronger arguments in debate. Here's some miscellaneous thoughts and things to keep in mind if you are reading a policy aff or DAs/CPs in front of me:
-Even if the 2NR is 6-minutes on T, you still need to extend case—It feels arbitrary to disregard args that aren't extended in every instance except for a 2AR vs T. HOWEVER, saying "extend case, it was conceded" will suffice.
-In a lot of scenarios, I think 1AR framework + weigh case is the right 2AR rather than the perm (i.e. the perm is pretty incoherent vs pess in my opinion). However, I do still think spamming perms is a good time suck, and am a big fan of creative, strategic perms.
-I think multiple condo is probably bad but you can easily win otherwise. I also really enjoy hearing CP theory debates.

Speaks

Speaks are a referendum of how well you debate, not how well you talk. If you make strategic pivots, smart arguments, demonstrate good time allocation, make arguments efficiently, implicate claims well, and display impressive round vision, I promise you that it will be reflected in your speaks.

Safety

As I stated at the start of my paradigm, I am an incredibly tab judge, and will evaluate any arguments presented. However, if anything makes you uncomfortable in any way, please let me know (you can text me at 405-763-7778 if you would like to do it discreetly but quickly) and I will immediately stop the round and figure out the best course of action.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Defaults

If no arguments are made on a particular issue, I'll default to the following:

Ev Ethics

I would prefer you to just debate it out if its a insignificant rule like not having a link to an article.

1. CX is binding just like any other speech. I highly doubt I will evaluate any arguments to the contrary (to clarify, you can argue about the semantics of what was said and the implications if it, but just not blatantly choosing to sever out of what has been said.
2. Prep can be CX but CX can't be used as extra prep.
3. I don't flow CX (by default - if you want me to flow, tell me and I will), but I'll listen and will write down anything that you flag as important.

Traditional/Locals Paradigm

Adam Mimou Hire 8 rounds

Prateek Motagi Hire 14 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 12:54 PM EDT

He/Him

email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu

lots of circuit experience (gtoc and more)

ask me anything before round!

tldr: run whatever, explain it, win!

disclosure is good (I mean for my decision, ofc)

Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. I was forced by my partner to love impact turns (do what you will with that). More on progressive stuff below.
Pleeeease read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (saves u from theory)

for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in speech. for example, if I'm running solving domestic violence in my case, which some people could be uncomfortable debating about since that's an issue personal to them, I would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)

Tell me if you're in the bubble and I'll give you 30s

If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I'm fine with a nice, chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority!

Speeches

Paraphrasing is chill, just don't lie about evidence. HOWEVER, I’m open to cut-card theory–I won’t intervene with my personal ideologies.
I'm fine with any speed, I don’t want to limit you as the judge. However, notify me before your speech so I know what to expect! I'll let you know if I need a doc or not.
Enunciate even if you're spreading, don't try to slur words to get more stuff out pls.

Rebuttal

You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.

Summary/FF

Must extend your link, impact, and clear warrant!!! (idc about author names I don't flow them)

Framework

Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times, teams will just read a blip at the top of case saying “The fw for this debate should be how x will help in the future”
I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)

Progressive

ngl idk much about prog
I was not a theory debater

judge simp bad!

Jayant S Namdhari Hire 8 rounds

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

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4] I don't know the topic lol

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

Paradigm:

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

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

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

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

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

Tricks - 4/5

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

K Affs vs FW

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

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

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

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

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

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

- good for larp v k

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

- lbl > long o/v's

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

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

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

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

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

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

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

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

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

Phil

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

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

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

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

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

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

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

Tricks

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

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

Evidence Ethics

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

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

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

Misc:

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

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

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

Marcus Phillips Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 30, 2022 at 7:19 PM EDT

He/him

4th year debating in pf at Ridgewood, 2nd year on the Nat circuit

Add me to the email chain: 03marcus.phillips@gmail.com

General

I'll evaluate any argument with a warrant.

Disclose on the NDCA wiki for +.25 in speaks

Speech docs with cards should be sent right before the speech in which it is read for constructive and rebuttal if possible, pf evidence exchanges take way too long in general. Sending speech docs w cards = +.25 in speaks.

Please collapse to 1 case argument by summary and weigh comparatively (analysis, not just buzzwords).

Everything must have a warrant if you want me to vote off it, including extensions.

If both teams agree to skip grand cross before the round then I'll give each team an extra minute of prep.

Important (where I may differ from other judges)

Way too many judges are willing to vote off new frontlines in 2nd summary, new implications in the backhalf, and blown-up turns that were read as 5 second blips in rebuttal. I will never vote for a new argument read in summary or final focus, and 2nd summary must maintain consistency with the frontlines read in 2nd rebuttal. If a response to offense you're going for is dropped and it is well implicated as terminal defense in both rebuttal and in summary, it is often nearly impossible to recover. That being said, if a warrant is not extended in the back half of the debate and there is no implication as to how it takes out their case, I will not do the work for you to vote for the argument.

Defense is NOT sticky if it's dropped but read on an argument that's frontlined (although insufficiently). However, if an argument is fully conceded, defense is sticky. For example, if they only frontline their C3 but concede 1 piece of terminal defense to it, you need to extend this piece of defense and explain how it takes out their argument. But, you don't need to extend all the responses to C1 or C2 since the argument is fully conceded.

ALL parts of an argument that you want me to vote on must be extended (uq, link, internal link(s), impact). When extending, I would prefer you don't just read a full case extension then address their responses. I would rather you extend the uniqueness, then respond to any uq level response, then extend the link and respond to defense at the link level, and so on.

Additional

Cross is binding.

Implicated disads are fine in rebuttal (unless I am told otherwise in the round). I'll be annoyed if you read an overview in rebuttal that's just a bunch of new contentions, I'll reluctantly vote off them but I'll definitely buy paragraph theory that they're unfair.

Theory is probably fine, I'm not experienced with it but I understand how it works.

I'm definitely not the best K judge and don't have experience reading or debating against them, but I'll vote for it just like any other argument. That being said, I may not understand everything.

I don't care that tricks are dumb, if it's conceded and has a warrant I'll evaluate it just as I would evaluate any other piece of offense in the round.

Don’t steal prep. It’s really obvious what you’re doing if you call for every single card separately and it takes like 10 minutes to send them.

Won't flow over speech times.

I’m fine with postrounding

Rikhil Ranjit Hire 8 rounds

Colton Caleb Schons Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 7, 2023 at 7:30 AM PDT

speech and debate should be a safe space for students to express themselves.

db8 experience:

North Central High School, Spokane, WA – debated 2018-21 (Circuit LD)

University of Washington, Seattle, WA – 1N/2A (NDT/CEDA Policy)

please start an email chain before the 1ac and include me: cfushi@uw.edu

all evidence read must be included in the email chain w/properly formatted cites (update 5/2021: excluding re-highlightings) preferably (but not required) in a Verbatim-enabled Microsoft word document and also preferably (but not required) working, accessible hyperlinks - applies to online and in-person unless you don't have access to a laptop or the internet. analytics not being on is ok - I'm not the best at typing them all out either - but don't speed through full steam if they're not in the doc.

pronouns: he/him/his

*note: I'm fine with most args except death good or death neutral, please don't read it in front of me for personal reasons if you can avoid it - especially arguments advocating suicide. Anything else, please give a content warning when reasonable (graphic violence, sexual assault, slurs, et cetera) and accommodate your opponents.

if I'm judging speech for some reason: I did impromptu and program oral interp, for both of which I went to WA State championships. I also did DI, which I sucked at but enjoyed, and extemporaneous, which I extra sucked at and loathed.

pref me in this order (top/1 = you want me in your round, bottom/4 = literally strike me )

k (structural + identity positions) - 1

soft left aff - 2

larp/policy - 2

k (pomo etc) - 3

phil - 3

trix: strike me. seriously, it's worth using one of your strikes.

pet peeves:

saying "they don't do enough work on the flow" -- sounds like something a coach would say -- expand on this a bit or use the word "ink" ig

telling me that x speech/cross-x was ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING THEY HAVE CONCEDED THAt... (jk)

saying your opponent dropped something when they didn't

being overly aggressive - be confident! but there's a clear line where you're being unkind to people.

paraphrasing instead of reading a properly formatted card (i.e. Author, year: [text of cut card])

yay:

a s m r of keyboards typing during prep

but srsly:

process cps bad ------x--- process cps cheating a bit

condo good -----x---- condo bad

standards, rotb, literally anything else framingwise x---------- v/vc (eew)

k affs in the direction of the topic good ---x------ fascistic fw hack

debate is an advocacy space x--------- debate is a game

ld specific stuff:

I hate nebel-t and plans bad theory with a passion. Disclosure and generics probably solve and unless you can prove specific abuse, a few mediocre analytic responses from the aff are sufficient defense for me to not vote on it.

I won't vote on most tricks prima facie - a clever strategy =/= a trick, but something disingenuously spread through to exclude large swaths of offense that everyday people would find categorically absurd and that adding 10 more seconds to your opponent's rebuttal would neutralize - that's probably a trick, and you'll know it on my face (providing I'm looking up from flowing and don't have my head in my hands).

affs - I'll count an overview and brief underview extension (if you have one) as sufficient to extend; obviously extensions need a warrant but the 1ac presumably already has one so I don't expect you to spend a lot of time here esp. since time skew is a huge thing

condo is probably good if the aff can reasonably answer the 1nc in 4 minutes; if it's purposefully designed to take advantage of time skew I'll be more convinced by the aff on condo debates

slow down on your underview! I'm not the fastest flower yet also underviews still need warrants

default to nibs ok, condo good and yes rvi's unless you successfully argue otherwise

trad ld ppl - don't focus on the v/vc debate if it's not necessary - it's a waste of time (e.g. util vs. "cost-benefit analysis"). you don't have to have a dedicated voter section at the end of the 2nr/2ar! affs, collapsing in the 2ar or even 1ar can be strategic if you have multiple contentions. Trad ld can and should be more phil-based otherwise the v/vc debate is kinda pointless. Also, for the 1nc, contentions can probably just be rephrased as disads, counterplans, etc. to keep flows tidier - the 1nc should still differentiate between different off-case and on-case arguments even if it is a trad round - doing so will help your speaks. Going one off phil nc is a really good trad strat that will boost your speaks; contact me if you need help understanding - I underwent the transition from understanding only trad to circuit-style as well so I know how it feels.

"this is ld" isn't a warrant. If you're reading t or theory, read a properly formatted shell (interpretation, violation, standards, voters, drop the debater or drop the arg). p.s. topicality is negative ground because it only concerns whether the affirmative plan falls under the ground that the resolution assigns to the affirmative - I've heard 1ar's calling the negative "untopical" too many times in trad.

more experienced debaters should try to accommodate less-experienced ones, but I won't disadvantage a student based on their stylistic choice to be more "progressive" just because their opponent is not. Especially in ToC-bid and/or varsity divisions, students should be expected to engage non-"traditional" positions.

that being said, do not read arguments whose format and/or warrants you clearly do not understand. your speaks will thank you.

cx specific stuff:

I'll judge kick in the 2n only if you tell me to, don't assume I will - although to be honest, most aff arguments against judge kick are more persuasive to me. I don't think judge kick belongs in ld because the negative gets more structural advantages than in policy imho, but if you win it you win it

idc who speaks (ins and outs, 1a/2a etc, idc) BUT each person must give at least two speeches and one cross examination unless extenuating circumstances arise.

let's not hide aspec or other voters clearly tangential to the flow you're on in those pages? it's academically dishonest and unaccommodating to people with processing difficulties - incl. me.

everyone:

sit or stand, (online: camera on or off), wear whatever you want, it's not my role to police you nor is it appropriate for judges to do so.

please time yourselves and each other.

stock issues are antiquated but still matter, even if we don't specifically call some of them by their names, keep them in mind - if you give a 2nr on "significance" and it's really good, I'll think it's really funny and give you (and your partner if it's in policy or pf) a 30.

not up for debate: speech times, things that happened out of round that aren't disclosure-related, having only one winner (I literally can't award two ballots), speaker points, people's identities, authenticity testing (unless you have solid proof), other people's experiences, comparing minorities' oppression relative to one another, whether you can: say a slur belonging to, read pess args about, or blatantly misrepresent yourself as an identity group you are not (you can't and if your opponent makes even the weakest argument about this I will award them the ballot).

case debate

disclose on the wiki!!! open source, round reports, cites, do it!

mental health comes first. I personally struggle(d) a lot with this in debate; if you need some time to regroup as long as you're not prepping and we can finish the debate before the tabroom timer ends please take it. I trust that people won't abuse this - just know that taking care of yourself is a pre-req to good debating and winning a round shouldn't come at the expense of your health.

I'm more sympathetic to small schools when it comes to t and theory including disclosure

I try to be generous but not Weimar Republic inflationary with speaks. If you get below a 27 then you really need to work on your skills, but I do give out 30s as well. Middle of the road should be 28.5, before adjusting up or down based on tournament norms (e.g., an east circuit tournament like Harvard vs. a west coast local district would expect different speaker point scales, and I’ll try to fit them as best as I can).

please, no aggressive post-rounding. I hate confrontations.

Hanming Sun Hire 8 rounds

Liam Justin Webb Hire 3 rounds

Izabella Widulski Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 5, 2022 at 11:09 AM EDT

I'm a Public Forum debater at Lakeland High School in Yorktown Heights, NY.

If you still have any questions after reading this, please feel free to ask.

Email if you need an email chain or questions after the round: izabella.wid@gmail.com

And if you don't have time to read this - TLDR; I flow, explain arguments, have evidence, keep time, and have fun!

Flowing

I will be flowing everything except crossfire. Use crossfire as a way to clear confusion or build upon what will be in an actual speech. Emphasize what you really want to have flowed.

Signposting, and telling me what you are addressing, does help.

Speed

In terms of speed, I do not care anymore. Keep in mind, it becomes difficult to understand what you're saying for not only me but for your opponents. I will struggle flowing it. Make sure to emphasize and enunciate appropriately.

Types of Arguments

I generally prefer well-warranted impacts.

As long as you explain well I can handle obscure arguments, but nothing major. I am not all-knowing, sometimes things do not make sense.

Dates

I prefer you read the year for your cards.

Evidence

Evidence is not everything but I find it important.

If you misinterpret evidence, read from authors or sources that are clearly unreliable, or make an argument that isn’t backed up by evidence at all, that lowers the traction of the argument, especially if the other team calls you out on it.

Please explain your arguments in a sensible way that I can vote on.

Summary and Final Focus

You don't have to extend your defense from the rebuttal into your Summary but if your opponent has made massive turns, you should put up some defense. In Final Focus, please weigh. You should be the ones telling me throughout and prominently in final, my reason for decision.

No new arguments in Final Focus.

Decorum

Funny jokes and witty puns are welcomed, but be chill about it. Getting heated is fine but keep things civil, intelligent, and respectful.

If you say "judge" I will look at you with anticipation for something you want on the flow above all.

Prep

I can keep your prep time or speech time if necessary but I would prefer you do that yourselves.

Further, if you go overtime I am fine with finishing a sentence or two but I won't flow evidence over time.

Miscellaneous

I couldn't care less about what you do before the round. You could throw a chair out the window and I won't take off speaks (but I will testify against you in court).

How you debate means more to me than what you wear.

It is your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote.

Feel free to ask me anything about your individual performance, or for any debate-related advice. At the end of the round, I would not mind if you showed me your own perspective of the round, I would want to help you guys improve as debaters but I also want to improve as your judge. If you think I did something unfair feel free to let me know.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, have fun. You guys are doing something that takes a lot of effort and willpower, so just enjoy yourselves and hopefully, you'll remember these times fondly.

Johnson n/a Wu Hire 17 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 2:32 AM PDT

he/him

PF:

add me to your email chain: Johnsondebateemail@gmail.com

I prefer all debaters to send speech docs with cards before each speech, case and rebuttal

TL;DR

Tabula rasa judge. I really like roadmaps and clear signpostings. For theories or K's to be evaluated, it must be explained very well. If you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. make sure to always extend and weigh. clean warranting is very important. Defense is sticky. Have cut cards ready to send.

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic.

Things I like:

Roadmaps and clear signpostings

Comparative weighing

Starting weighing in rebuttal

Parallelism in backhalf

Non-stock arguments (I like smart arguments, not frivolous arguments)

Things I don't like:

New responses or wEiGhiNg in grand cross because you undercovered the argument

New offensive overviews or DA dumps in second rebuttal

New responses to turns in second summary

Extending through ink or incomplete extensions

Being rude

Voting:

I default con for policy resolutions and first-speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm fine with TKOs but if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you lose with 25s

Progressive debate:

I evaluate theory, kritiks, LARP, performance, tricks, non-T kritiks, high theory, and basically anything.

You do not need to ask your opponents if they are comfortable with theory: "I don't know how to respond!" is not an actual response.

I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell.

General:

tech > truth. but my threshold for responses also decreases with the quality of the arguments made.

Second rebuttal must frontline, defense is sticky. if you want me to evaluate turns make sure to extend, implicate, and weigh throughout.

Extend offense and defense through summary and FF to be weighed. saying the word "extend" is not extending, you must explain your extensions. also make sure to weigh

Weighing is super important. If both sides have some risk of offence (which they usually do) I'll look to weighing. saying "we outweigh on magnitude isn't weighing because our impact is big" isn't weighing. Weighing must be interactive and try to start weighing early on.

I will not evaluate new material brought up in the backhalf except in first summary.

don't spam evidence, please explain why your evidence is preferable, don't just repeat your cards.

Worlds/Parli:

I make my decisions based on the flow, meaning I'll be more heavily convinced by good content than good style. However, I do evaluate truth>tech so please have good mechanization as well.

You should treat me as a person who is interested and generally knowledgeable in politics, philosophy, economics, etc

The burden of proofs and rejoinder always apply

I carry a slight bias towards liberal principles, ie free speech, democracy, believing that we have an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc

Please be realistic with your impacts, this is not pf.

Weighing is still very important. Debaters tend to be smart people and motions tend to be controversial. This means that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If you don't explain why your argument is more important than your opponents' points and they do, you will likely lose. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intuition. This is unpredictable. I am moody. You'll likely dislike my call. Don't do this.

Framing and characterization can help greatly with weighing and is just generally a good thing to do.

Overall:

Warrants/mechanisms are the most important in all formats of debate

Please be respectful, don't say anything problematic

Feel free to ask me any specifics before the round

Most importantly, enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Follow @johnsonnwuu on Instagram for +0.5 speaks !

Jonah Wunder Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 20, 2022 at 3:35 PM EDT

I have debated public forum for four years on the national circuit and local circuits.

Here's a list of expectations for the debaters in the round;

1) Talk at a reasonable speed. A lot of judge screws happen because the judge didn't really hear you argument. Don't let that happen.

I'll tell you if you're going too fast so please adjust if I tell you its too fast.

2) Don't read theory. Theory is usually a waste of time. If there is a major in-round issue that needs to be addressed, do so in paragraph form.

3) Convince me. You shouldn't focus exclusively on being tech or rhetoric-heavy. Both components are important.

4) Win crossfire. Crossfire is binding. It's almost impossible to come back from a very bad first crossfire. Make sure that you can defend your case and poke holes in you opponents arguments. If you sound like you have no idea what’s going on I will be less inclined to believe you during the round. Remember though, I will not evaluate the content of crossfire unless you mention it in one of your speeches.

5) Be likeable. If you are really unlikeable I will be less inclined to vote for you. Note: You can be aggressive without being rude/mean/etc.

6) Stay in time. I will give a ten second grace period to finish a sentence. Anything said after the 10 second grace period will not be evaluated.

Other things to keep in mind:

- Defense is not sticky.

- New arguments must be made before summary and weighing has to be introduced before final focus.

- Poorly implicated turns/DAs have zero value in the round.

- I will only evaluate what is said in final focus.

7) Include me on the email chain. My email is jonahwunder@gmail.com. If you evidence is trash then I'll probably drop you. If you take longer than 5 minutes to send a single piece of evidence, that evidence will not be evaluated in the round.

8) Follow this paradigm. If you can't spend the 3 min it takes to read this and adjust then you deserve to lose.

Justin L Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

The Online Summer Open

2020 — Online, MA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges