Tabroom.com

Flow and Go Invitational

2020 — online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aisha Bawany Hire

Last changed on Sat February 11, 2023 at 6:16 AM CDT

I did NDT/CEDA policy debate at UT Dallas and LD debate in high school.

Add me to the email chain: aishabawany98@gmail.com

If I am in your round, I will do my best to listen closely to every speech, argument, cx question/answer etc. made in round. I remember how horrible it felt when my judges didn’t listen or care despite hours of prep and hard work—I aim to not be like them. That means that while your speech and arguments matter, so does your clarity.

I am fine with speed.

Argument Evaluation

I believe debate is about the contextualization of evidence and your speech act of persuasion. I think the quality and explanation of arguments matters more than the amount of arguments. When you are extending/explaining your arguments, make sure to name/warrant the argument, not the author. It is not enough for you to just spread through a card and expect me to vote off of a tiny sentence in your card. You have to explain the warrant and how things function in relation to each other.

I do not like to do work in debates for debaters. II aim to be an empty shell that is filled with both teams' arguments and then to adjudicate without any bias-- a true clean slate. That means I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as it is explained to me well. The truth of different critical theories don't matter to me. If you're winning it, then I'll vote off of it.

Framework/K v K debates/Framework v. K debates/Topicality

I did run a lot of framework/T so I do enjoy watching that debate. Up to you though on what you want to run and how you want to do it. I'll evaluate it with the best of my ability. I'm predisposed to topical aff positions in policy because I have mostly debated with topical policy cases. That is not to say that I won't vote on them, just that I am not the best judge to evaluate K v. K debates. I never think you should run arguments you are unfamiliar with, so don't stop running those arguments, just make it easier for me to understand the method by which I should evaluate/weigh the round. Framework is always a voting issue and a criticism of the affs method to play the game of debate. I default competing interps. You need to win that your definition/interpretation/model in a t/framework debate is better for debate unless you give me reasons for why I should default to reasonability. Personally, don't think lots of fairness claims on framework are super persuasive.

Theory

I’m less likely to be convinced to vote off theory debates since there’s never substantial argumentation on that flow that’s ever created. I mean, read your condo bad, perf con bad, multi actor fiat bad stuff as time sucks or go for it if it’s truly abusive, but I’m not about to sit up and be like “wow! A theory debate! I’m so excited!” I would prefer to vote for you off of something other than theory arguments. (I believe you can do much better).

Kritiks

Ks need to have a link, impact, and alt (though you may convince me you don't need to have an alt). If you’re going to go for the K, explain the link, why they can’t perm (if they try to), why the aff can't solve/is bad (ex. policy failure, vtl) and other aspects of the K. K's in my mind are similar to disads, but just function on a different level with a more critical lens. To weigh the aff against the kritik/vice versa, you also should have some sort of framework method top level.

Please do not assume I understand what your argument is or what literature you are reading in your K is about. I am not a coach, studying philosophy, or on the cutting edge of K debate. I have a job and do other things in my spare time.

CPs/DAs

Counterplans are cool. They are important to test whether the aff is a good idea. For CPs, they should have a cp text and some sort of net benefit. In order for me to vote on any disad, I think you need to win a link (not a risk of a link, I mean a LINK). I don’t care if it’s generic (though I would prefer it not be), it just has to be a link, okay? I hope you have/know the parts of a DA, because if you don't have them all, idt I can vote on it.

In my opinion, off cases are conditional, so there's a low probability of me voting off of condo unless you've been buried with off cases.

LD Frameworks/Value-Criterion stuff

It seems in LD that you need some sort of framework/way for me to evaluate the round. For framing, you need to have a value/criterion/ROB/ROJ that says that I should evaluate arguments by x. Plans are cool too. I ran different philosophical frameworks when I did LD and enjoy listening to unique ones and the way you justify your position through it. I don't care for disclosure debates in LD. I think disclosure is good in policy, but I honestly couldn't care less either way in LD. If you really feel that you were disadvantaged by not knowing what the aff was before round/previous 2NRs, then feel free to go ahead, but I won't be happy judging that kind of debate. I find those sorts of arguments boring.

General:

- Debate is a game.

- Tech over truth

- Presumption flows neg

- Let's all be nice to each other

- Simplify, simplify, simplify

Maria Cheng Hire

Jungyun (Emily) Choi Hire

Lars Deutz Hire

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

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

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

Basics

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

PF Basics

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

PF Rebuttal

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

PF Summary/Final Focus

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

Theory

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

Other non-standard arguments in PF

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

Evidence

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

Post-Round Info

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

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.

Nathan Gong Hire

Yash Gupta Hire 8 rounds

Hayden Harper Hire

Joanne Li Hire

ellen liu Hire

Karin Liu Hire 8 rounds

Ritvik Mahendra Hire 8 rounds

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

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

PSHS '20, UT '24

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

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

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

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

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

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

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

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

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

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

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

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

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

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

LD/CX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anmol Malviya Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 4:49 AM EDT

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (RC, SG, BG, LJ). traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

Anika Misra Hire

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 6:08 PM EDT

She/Her

Hi! I'm a second year college student who debated varsity PF in high school. I am a flow judge.

Please put me on the email chain- my email is anikamisra05@gmail.com

Some important things for round:

-I can handle speed, but make sure you still speak clearly.

-If you're going to spread, send the speech doc. If not, the speech doc isn't necessary. I prefer normal paced speaking, but to each their own.

-If you're an experienced team hitting novices, don't try and assert your dominance.

-Please please do not run an abusive framework, it's really annoying to hear & debate against them. I love frameworks and have no problem with them, as long as they are run well and aren't super abusive. Just make sure to extend your framework clearly in every speech, otherwise I will have to drop it from the flow.

-I don't have much experience w progressive args & I personally don't think PF is the place to run them. I'm willing to evaluate them as long as your opponents are okay with it and you can explain it well. Don't think its the easy way to the ballot, it's likely going to be one of the last things I consider, unless it's the entirety of the round. Also, if you're going to run something moral based, make sure it actually applies.

-I would strongly recommend frontlining in second rebuttal/ first summary.

-Disads in rebuttal are annoying please do not do that. Use your rebuttal as a rebuttal, not as an opportunity to add another contention.

-It is imperative to weigh in summary.

-I would also recommend collapsing by summary.

-No new evidence in second summary onward, it will not be considered in my decision.

-It is also important to extend everything you want me to vote on from summary to FF. Those speeches should almost mirror each other.

-Don't extend author names and call it a day. Extend warrants and analysis.

-I'm not going to flow cross. If something important comes up in cross, bring it up in the next speech. Don't try and bring up new args in grand cross, it's too late.

-SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST.

Misc:

-If you say anything racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, or anything discriminatory, I will automatically give you L20's.

-I'll only call cards if you tell me to.

-I might time y'all in speeches but it's fine if you're 5-10 seconds over/ under. Don't go farther than that though.

-Give me a 2 second extremely brief order before speeches.

-Please please don't be rude or disrespectful, especially in cross. A civil cross is probably going to get you higher speaks. If you are disrespectful or rude, it will reflect in your speaks.

-Not disclosing is mean so I will always disclose with comments (unless the tournament doesn't allow it.) I will also give a verbal RFD instead of a written one. If you have questions, feel free to ask.

-I'm lenient with speaks as long as you're nice, all good.

-Overall, have fun! Don't stress too much and enjoy the round

Prateek Motagi Hire 8 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!

Lizzie Myers Hire

Last changed on Sun October 30, 2022 at 11:06 AM EDT

Hello! I graduated high school in 2022 and am currently at the University of Florida. I competed in a multitude of events, most notably speech & Congress on the national circuit.

You don't have to ask whether you can time yourself -- especially when we're online, I know we all do it anyways. Yes.

Speech: Make sure to have clear-cut transitions. Speech is a difficult area to judge because it's highly subjective, but an easy voter for me is when I can't flow. Out of respect for your fellow competitors, please give trigger warnings if you cover sensitive topics. Finally, let me know what signals work best for you. Usually I signal at 2, 1, a circle @ 30 seconds, and fist at 0. I'll default to that if you have no preference.

CX: I'm not the biggest fan of K affs, but if you feel like it's your best approach, then you're welcome to run them. I love case turns on neg. If you're going to run topicality, make sure it's a significant issue because I value impact. Clearly T isn't a voter if you still have cards to run against the aff. Disclosure is important too. I try not to judge CX as often because spreading virtually is a nightmare. Please speak with clarity if you're going to spread, but it's best to acknowledge the difference between online & in-person tournaments and go a bit slower.

PF: I'm a game judge. I'll believe anything you tell me--yes, that includes nuclear war--provided you have verifiable cards. It's the other side's job to address outlandish claims, so even if the aff discusses vaccines causing developmental delays, they may win on that arg if neg doesn't respond. I don't think it's fair when judges come in with preconceived notions on a certain topic, so I try my best to put those biases aside & focus on the flow. I do draw the line at racism, homophobia, etc...that's an automatic vote for the other side.

CONG: Please, please, please do not overpower your chamber. If you agree to go base-2 on speeches, don't be the one senator/rep to raise your hand for the third time (even if you don't end up speaking due to precedence, everyone notices). On the other hand, I don't expect you to memorize precedence/recency for questioning. Even if I can see on my sheet that there's no way you're going to be called on, repeatedly raising your placard for questions shouldn't detract from your performance. On content itself: make sure your speech addresses its purpose in the context of the round. A sponsorship speech should sponsor the legislation itself. Take me through each section & tell me how those words address the problem at-hand. The first few speeches are mainly new information with some slight rebuttals thrown in. Once we've completed 5 cycles, though, I don't want to hear the same arguments being explained to me in slightly different ways. That's when you focus on clash. Final speeches? Crystallization. Congress has a certain flow to each session; this is difficult to maintain when everyone is set on giving a 3-minute prepared speech. Improvising is a key part of this event, so be prepared to do so in the later parts of the debate.

- PO: I recognize that there's a difference between the responsibilities of PO and standard competitors. Make sure to say "seeing as an hour of debate has passed...you can mark me down as the ___ speech" -- otherwise, I may not be obligated to mark you as a speaker, and that doesn't help your rank. I've ranked PO #1 in their chamber before, and in the middle as well. Don't worry about taking that position, provided you're dedicated & know what you're doing. I've only seen a PO rank last once, but I'd do that if it's apparent that they only took the position to avoid giving speeches & haven't practice procedures once. ++ If you're PO, don't end unfinished questioning periods with "I guess we'll never know."

Kimberly Nguyen Hire 8 rounds

Madeline Ou Hire 8 rounds

Adita S Hire None

Serkan Tan Hire

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

TLDR on my paradigm:

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

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parli:

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

PF:

What I like to see in round:

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

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

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

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

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

What I don't like to see in round:

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

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

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

My quirks:

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

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

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

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

Patrick Tapia Cabrillo Middle School Independent

Andrew Thong Hire

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

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

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

most important thing:

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

other less important stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

progressive arguments:

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

no friv theory, no tricks

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

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

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

Ilan Adrien Villard Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 4:55 AM EDT

I’m currently a Freshman at Georgia Tech.

There are a few things to keep in mind during the round:

Make sure to watch speed. I can basically understand anything except the fastest speeds, but you have to make sure that your opponents can understand you. If you’re gonna go really fast just tell everybody before you do so.
I listen in but don’t flow crossfire.
I’m generally a flow judge. That means that presentation matters little to me; you should focus on getting arguments out there.
I won’t be too happy if you run theory or K’s, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for you. Just keep in mind that you are taking a risk by running prog.
Be respectful throughout the round. Everybody has worked hard to get to this round and that should be respected.

To get my ballot:

If you want an argument weighed at the end of the round, bring it up in FF and summary. I generally won’t look at arguments that don’t show up in both FF and summary.
That being said, I’m not super strict on extensions. You don’t have to strictly extend warrants, argument tag, impacts, and cards for me to consider an argument. Of course, the more you extend, the better, but I don’t keep specifics out of consideration if they aren’t perfectly extended. For example, if you extend an argument tag and warrant in both FF and summary, but only extend the impact in summary, I won't immediately take the impact out of consideration.
Please, please try to signpost and give an offtime roadmap. The more you do this, the better my flow will be, and the likelier I am to catch your arguments.
Debate your style. Whatever I’ve put in this section are suggestions; you don’t have to conform to that exactly. I hate when I look at a judge’s paradigm and they tell me to debate in a specific way that I’m not used to. Take these as recommendations, not strict guidelines.

If you have any questions, just reach out to me at my email (villardilan22@gmail.com) or ask me before the round. I’d be happy to answer any questions I receive!

Ryan Wilkinson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 12:19 PM CDT

Caddo Magnet 22'

Tulane 26'

email chain: ryanw9700@gmail.com

I did policy debate in high school for all four years. I did Zoom debate for a while, if possible, please have cameras on.

Tech over truth

Speak as fast as you want

More clash = better debate

Please do impact calculus

Good Line by Line will win you the round

Evidence quality matter a lot. I do read evidence after the round, and I see too often debaters power tagging entire arguments and getting a way with it. If the argument is dumb call it out. If you want me to read certain pieces of evidence after the round say it in speeches.

I read a variety of K and Policy oriented arguments in high school. I'm familiar with most critical literature bases. I do not have a strong preference towards either argument style.

What I like to see:

1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details

2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully

3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round

What I do not like:

1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies

2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it

1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details

2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully

3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round

What I do not like:

1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies

2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it

Topicality - go for it. If you are 2n, it should be all 5 minutes of the 2nr.

After hearing a lot of T debates on the NATO topic, I do not wanna hear T in the 2NR. This is not my preferred negative argument on the topic. Please feel free to read it though

Kritks: I love a good K debate. Links to the affirmative are the most persuasive to me. Other links are fine if explained properly. If you are not going for the alternative, you should win framework. If the framework page gets too messy don't expect me to do the work for you. I have a base level understanding of most literature bases. I read a K aff my senior year of HS. If you know your K then there should be no problem winning.

Framework: Debate is a game, but that is up to interpretation. Fairness is an impact. Clash is more persuasive to me. I think affirmative teams should be creative when responding to FW. I am more open to different models of debate than most judges. The 2NR shouldn't be five minutes of fairness comes before their arguments. Answer what the other team is saying.

I like K v. K debates. I can't promise I will flow perfectly in these rounds, so rebuttal speeches that clearly clarify the role of judge and ballot are crucial.

CP: I love a good CP debate. I can be convinced by any theory here. Unless it's condo its most likely a reason to reject the arg not the team.

DA: The best of the debates are with good impact calculus and resolved with good impact cal. Yes on impact turns. Link debate work is nice.

Speaker Points:

I give higher speaks than average. 28.6 is what I expect out of most rounds. If you are unclear and give bad, uncreative arguments, your speaker points will reflect that.

- I end up judging lots of LD rounds. I have never done LD only judged rounds on it. I am best suited for LARP and K args. Anything outside of that I am probably not the best judge for you. I can handle a theory debate, buture.

Read my policy paradigm

1) LARP

2) Kritiks

3) Phil

4) Theory

5) Trixs

RVIs are dumb. I don't like voting on them.

just do impact cal

Based on my experience, this event is a pain to judge. Please do not paraphrase. Please engage with each others arguments. Please do not send out a card doc if its just a bunch of quotes from NYT and Vox.

Miranda Carroll Wilson Hire

Last changed on Mon September 27, 2021 at 4:31 PM EDT

she/her

Hey! I'm a rising senior at Myers Park, and I've been debating PF for three years on the national and local circuit. Debate is absolutely my favorite activity, and it makes me happy. Overall, I hope you enjoy the round/have fun.

Include me in the email chain! mirandawwilson@gmail.com

If you'd rather have the round on Zoom, I have unlimited and can send an invite.

My preferences:

-I will vote off the flow, but I have to buy your argument. For example, if you extend something all the way into final but it's not warranted/explained I won't vote off of it. Rather than "tech over truth" or "truth over tech", I'm more of a tech should equal truth (if that makes sense?).

-The flow is important to me but so is narrative. When determining speaks, I will look at how effectively you combined evidence with rhetoric.

-I can handle speed, but do not spread.

-Please frontline in second rebuttal!

-I will not flow disads in second rebuttal. Rebuttal is not the time to add in a third contention or argument, it is a time for defense.

-The same cards/arguments/weighing need to be extended in both summary and final focus. Please give me a clear weighing mechanism and explain it! It will make my job much easier.

-Signpost!!!!!!!!!

-I find historical precedent extremely important and love when it's argued in round. I also love framework debates; I think good framework can be used really effectively (same thing as above though, I have to buy it).

-I love unique arguments!! However, I do not have much experience with theory, and I don't think PF is necessarily the place for it. I'm willing to hear it, but I can't promise you'll be happy with how I evaluate it.

-Please don't misinterpret evidence. I'm begging you. There are so many articles out there. Find a piece of evidence that says what you want it to say instead of misconstruing. Don't be surprised if I call for evidence at the end of a round, especially if it gets indicted.

-To extend evidence you don't necessarily have to extend the citation, just make sure the content of the card stays consistent.

-I hate when arguments get muddled. If you don't have a good response, then just try to outweigh: don't muddle.

-I will disclose and give an RFD if both teams want/the tournament allows.

Miscellaneous:

-Be respectful. I have dealt with a lot of sexism during my time in debate, and if you are condescending in anyway I will dock your speaks. Any racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments and you will automatically lose.

-If you make me laugh, have clever contention names, or somehow make a relevant Harry Potter reference I'll give you an extra speaker point.

-I don't mind if you skip grand cross because it's awkward if no one has any questions. I won't flow first and second cross, but I will consider it for speaks, etc.

-If your opponent didn't drop an argument, then don't say they dropped it. Also, don't extend through ink.

-Feel free to ask any questions after the round!

-Have fun:)

Anthony Yu Hire 8 rounds

Andrew Zhang Hire

Last changed on Thu June 25, 2020 at 4:34 AM PDT

hi I'm Andrew Zhang. I will give you 30 speaks if you can beat me in Minecraft PVP 1v1. But otherwise about debate.

About me

I am an upcoming sophomore and I consider myself relatively flow(I will flow the round). I am going to try my best to be tech over truth but I am ok with speeches a little over time, however, if u say 30 sec grace period and read a 4th contention then I will not evaluate it.

Speaks

GIVE A ROADMAP IF U CARE ABT UR SPEAKS AT ALL!!!!!!! If you read 30 speaks theory at the top of your case with a 5 second warrant I will give everyone 25 speaks because that also increases equality in the debate space. Well used rhetoric will also result in high speaks.

Theory

I am pretty clueless about kritiks but I do know some basic theory such as trigger warning theory but otherwise I'm pretty clueless. Friv theories such as "debaters must wear shoes" or "debaters must be from the state of California" will need to be CRYSTAL FKING CLEAR for me to evaluate them. Overall, im ok w CLEAR theory but please don't read it against novices that don’t know how to respond.

Constructive

Im flowing on paper so I can't write that fast, if u are spreading send a speech doc. Otherwise not much else, I will eval squirrelly args if ur opps don't respond to it but I have to understand it in the first place so please explain them well. I debated this topic at Berk and have debated it at least 20 times so I know the stock args for sure.

Crossfire

Cross ex is not important to me, Im ok with skipping grand but tbh just don't get railed in cross, i'll prolly be playing Minecraft anyways. If u want to use smth from cross just say, "remember from crossfire when (person) concedes that blah blah blah"

Rebuttal

Please don't card dump. I would like to not get arthritis before the age of 20 and I would also like my pen ink to last to the end of the tourney because I value my g-2's. Otherwise basic rebuttal stuff. I expect a 2nd rebuttal to frontline. If you dump disads second rebuttal so I will have a low response threshold for it, but if you read 1 or 2, I can keep my normal threshold. I WILL VOTE OFF A DISAD. If you are reading an ov/disad/weighing/framing please tell me where to flow it. Framing is pretty big for me cuz I think it's the only way aff has a chance.

Summary

please collapse. It makes it so easy for me to vote for u. If u go for their entire case and then your entire case too, it makes it super hard for me to vote for u. Also, please weigh. If you weigh solely on magnitude I will find it super hard to vote for you unless you also weigh on prob or read the human natural bias against high mag low prob weighing. You must start actually "extending" from summary and def through final. If u dont extend in either speech in the back half, I can only vote off turns/disads. 2ND SUMMARY IS TOO LATE FOR NEW FRONTLINES/ANALYSIS. I am ok w new frontlines first sum cause I think 1st is structurally disadvantaged.

Final Focus

TELL ME WHY YOU WON. This is easiest done through weighing but other methods are also fine(don't know what u guys have in mind). Extend the collapse and weigh for me so I can vote for u <3. Also if there is no offense on either side, I will default to the first speaking team.

Login to Tabroom

Flow and Go Invitational

2020 — online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges