Cathedral, Emory | sarang.arun17@gmail.com

—***Last time I debated was 2021, so I am a little rusty, bear w. me please

—TLDR: Debate however you like, and I'll attempt to adapt to you - you can do everything/anything you want to do in front of me as long as it's clear. Fair warning though, I'm not really experienced with evaluating Ks or theory or really any progressive arguments but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate them: it just means you'll need to explain the nuances of your argument to me more. I did circuit PF in high school, and I think that's still pretty flay/tame compared to other events.

PF

—Defense is not sticky (explicitly call out drops), 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything that the 2nd speaking team wants to go for in the back half, offensive overviews are fine in 2nd rebuttal, good defense extensions > bad weighing <=> good weighing > bad defense extensions, weigh link-ins (link turns) when first read or I won't evaluate them, you don't need to extend author names when extending an argument, extend all levels of the link chain, I'll default to competing interps, yes RVIs but you must respond to no RVIs adequately if read, collapse or I'll be annoyed, speak slower because I really dislike speed (I have a hard time flowing speed because of auditory issues, where words get jumbled), everything must have a warrant, be kind to everybody in the round, if both teams win offense at the end of the round and don't weigh I'll intervene arbitrarily, disclosure is a good norm (+1 speaks), reading cut cards are a good norm (+1 speaks), I'll rarely presume neg/first (what I end up doing in a given round is subjective)—if I have to everyone's speaks are capped at 27, the median speaks I give out are 28s (so, if you disclose and read cut cards, you start out with a 30), & I'll disclose barring any specific requests.

—Add me to the email chain - no google docs for evidence please, people unshare them after rounds and that's a) unfair to the other team that actually debated in the round b) gross because all you did was cut/find said evidence - it's not your intellectual property so don't be stingy; if you make a google doc despite my request, I'll cap your speaks at 28.

—Content warnings are good and you should read them (within reason, use your better judgement) & barring a legitimate reason (like Wifi problems if we're online), I won't flow off a doc so adjust your speed accordingly. I will clear you twice before I stop flowing; take that as you will.

—have fun & breathe; you got this. Let me know how I can make the debate round more enjoyable for you.

Follow my twitch? https://twitch.tv/djdheedhee

Anything I think is out of the flow judge norm/important to read if you're skimming through will be asterisked (***blah blah blah).

Background. I'm a senior at Montgomery Blair HS, and it's my 5th year debating PF. If anything in this paradigm confuses you/there's something missing, shoot me an email (dheekeshav@gmail.com) or hmu on messenger.

Tech > Truth: This is what that means for you.

1. ***I am super committed to not intervening. I WILL NOT DO WORK. This isn't a "don't make me weigh for you" situation, it's a "if you don't explicitly weigh, I'll presume" sort of deal (I'll also presume if both sides win case and weighing and neither does metaweighing). The only exception is if you win defense/link turns on what they're extending, because then the weighing isn't really needed.

a) Presumption - in the context of rounds I judge - is when I can't find a path to the ballot without doing work for you, I vote along some predetermined metric. In this case, I presume whoever lost the coin flip.

2. David puts it best when he says "Run whatever argument you want...HOWEVER, I will intervene in instances where the safety of debaters in the room is compromised. That could be through making blatantly discriminatory arguments or not providing a content warning for a sensitive topic." Anything else is fine - just win your link chain.

Speed: I'm shit at flowing.

1. ***Ok, I'm not that bad, but I would say my inability to handle whatever VIP BL called "PF speed" is one of my biggest flaws as a debater. I can get arguments down, but if you want me to catch nuance or not miss one of your responses, don't push it.

2. If I get real lost, I'll clear you, but also, sometimes I'll just think I'm the shit at flowing when actually im catching like 2/3 of the responses sooo...

3. Idk where my threshold for starting to drop stuff is but it's probably somewhere around 225 WPM.

4. Don't send a speech doc because you plan on breaking the sonic barrier. I'll allow it if it's because your mic is trash or you cut out a lot

Extensions

1. ***Generally, I don't care if you extend card names. In fact, I would much rather you just said "Extend the C1 about Iran, that it would expand and lead to nuke war" or something like that. As long as I get your links and your impact, I'm good. I don't see the point in making y'all repeat yourselves for 30 seconds in each speech in the back half. This means I fully expect this to be in your speech. I'm making this easy on y'all. If you miss your impact, that's not my fault.

2. When extending responses and turns, keep in mind that my flowing is shitty. I still don't think you need the card names, but it'd help me on the flow a lot if you just told me the number of the response and the gist of it.

3. ***If your opponents extend case/turns/defense through ink, just say its through ink. If I don't have that ink on my flow, that's a big yikes.

4. ***I just lifted a lot of the regulation PF burden off of the summary/FF's shoulders. If you somehow still go 300 WPM in your summary, expect me to be very unhappy. If you blip through the 1 sentence extension, I might not catch it and think you dropped case, so slow down when you extend. Or just be slow the whole time.

Speech Stuff: Responding

1. 2nd rebuttal only has to frontline turns. Conceded contentions/turns have 100% strength of link, which is NOT the same thing as 100% probability of impact.

2. 1st summary needs to backline any frontlines that the 2nd rebuttal put on their defense if they want that defense in final focus. Dropped defense only needs to be "extended" in 2nd summary.

3. ***Turns have to be in summary. If you extend a dropped turn and frame it as defense in 1st final focus, I'll allow it.

4. No new responses to case/turns in summary (1st summary can frontline turns). No new frontlines in FF.

5. Signpost. Ideally, list # of responses to each argument before going into it.

Speech Stuff: Weighing

1. *** Only do real weighing please. I'll still evaluate it, but I die a little bit inside everytime someone tells me their two reasons they outweigh are probability and clarity of impact.

2. ***The last speech for new weighing is summary (not counting meta-weighing).

a) 1st FF is allowed if nobody does it before, and 2nd FF is allowed if nobody does it before (including 1st FF).

3. *** If both sides win case and weigh and nobody interacts with the other weighing/does meta-weighing, I'll presume.

4. I'd prefer if you didn't weigh on the flow (don't weigh as you get to their C1), but rather if all the weighing was separate from the line-by-line in your speech.

Crossfire

1. I'll probably be listening. If you're funny or smart in cross, your speaks will go up, and if you're rude or dumb in cross, your speaks will go down. A few more things on that:

a) Any sort of question or comment in the crossfire that has to do with you seeing evidence after the crossfire will annoy the shit outta me. You could be fantastic in round, but if you keep doing that in cross, your speaks will not reflect your impeccable speeches.

b) Inserting speeches into cross makes me sad.

c) My favorite crossfires happen when teams have multiple quickfire lines of questioning, even if nobody concedes anything in the process. Understanding when you're circling or when you're not going to get a concession and moving on is a goddamn talent.

2. ***Nobody is obligated to talk during cross-x. If you and the other team want to prep for 3 minutes, I'll allow it. If either team wants to ask questions, though, the other team's gotta answer them.

2. ***If you wanna use flex prep to ask questions, go for it.

Progressive Argumentation: I didn't run a lot of progressive arguments as a debater, but I did help write a cap K last year, and my school has won several rounds on paraphrasing theory, so I'm exposed to the argumentation.

1. *** For ALL debaters considering running progressive args in my round: I think that progressive arguments do belong in PF, but NOT in the way that they do in CX/LD. They should a) be read at the pace of a normal case, and b) be well-tagged so that the case itself is understandable OR paraphrased. If you spread me a semiocap K straight out of the backfiles, and your speech doc is extremely confusing, then I'll still evaluate it AS BEST I CAN, but your speaks will TANK. Debate, progressive or not, should be accessible and comprehensible. I also prefer paragraph theory when judging, even though I think that the shell format is better-organized, because I think that shells are more exclusionary.

2. You should extend theory and K's more rigorously than case, because it may be harder for myself/other debaters to grasp initially, so repeating it and explaining it well is helpful.

3. ***I default no RVI's, CI > Reasonability, DtA > DtD, but this is only if neither side tells me what to do. If you don't know what this means, maybe don't run theory (or ask me before round, I don't know that much more than y'all but I'll do my best).

4. ***By default, I will evaluate Theory and Ks before case, but since both have a ROB, if neither side tells me whether I go to Theory first or K's first in a debate where they're at odds with each other, I'll just kick both and go to the case debate. PLEASE do this weighing.

5. ***I'll evaluate tricks but I don't particularly like them. I'd easily take a paragraph theory argument about why tricks are bad because they reduce clash or arguments about why the spirit of the resolution > text of the resolution. ALSO DON'T HIDE TRICKS. Put them in a contention (or 5), or in a subpoint (can be in an unrelated contention) or in an over/underview. If it's hidden in your debt contention link chain, I'm not evaluating it.

Evidence ethics.

1. I'm not calling cards if nobody tells me to/there are no evidence conflicts.

2. ***I think if your evidence doesn't have a warrant but you do, I have no problem with that warrant/evidence combo. If your evidence and you have different warrants, that might be a problem.

3. If someone miscuts evidence and it's called out, I won't evaluate the card. As David puts it, "If you expect me to drop a debater for miscut evidence, read theory."

Speaks.

1. I'll generally just gut-check how good you are. That includes how well you speak and how smart the things you say are. If you concede defense/a contention and then spin it to work for you, I'll be super duper impressed.

2. ***If you get really passionate and curse in a speech, I'll probably laugh and boost your speaks. If you curse at someone, I will probably frown and tank your speaks.

3. ***I like sass and humor. Don't be rude.

4. ***Me and my old partner used to turn our team name (Montgomery Blair JK) into a joke at the end of our cases. We'd say "Judge, we may be Montgomery Blair JK but we're not just kidding when we tell you that.." Anything less cringy than this is appreciated.

Other Important Things

1. Wear what you want. Be comfortable, whether that's dressed up or dressed down. Just make sure you wear something.

Fun Stuff.

1. Worldstar rules apply. See them here (bottom of the paradigm, speaker ceiling doesn't apply): https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53657

2. At the request of both members of both teams (agree before the round), we can debate an entirely different topic (previous NSDA topic or otherwise, hell if y'all have prep for pancakes v. waffles, I'm down).

3. AJR Lyrics boost speaks, unless they're poorly inserted. If I don't catch em, oops.

That's it.

^This paradigm is heavily influenced by David Kinane, whom you can check out here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=40974.

hi!

i'm christina (she/her) and debated for wootton pf. ask me for clarification before the round starts. 

VBIPHL: Do not read progressive arguments against teams that clearly cannot engage with them in order to win. My ballot/your speaks will be reflective of your poor decision and you will be upset with the result that I input. 

misc:

1. i'll evaluate any argument you can think of, however, in the case where the safety of a debater is compromised in the room (be it any -ist argument or a lack of TW on a sensitive topic) i will intervene. tab has the option to specify pronouns for a reason, misgendering is not ok.

2. speed is ok but sacrificing clarity is not ok. 

3. probably won't call for ev, imo a bit interventionist unless someone explicitly asks me to and the round is unresolvable.

4. i have a very bad poker face so if i dont/do like something you'll know.

5. i am most receptive to substance and i will do my best to judge as technically as i can.

round:

1. second rebuttal must frontline turns - conceded turns/contentions in rebuttal have 100% strength of link.

2. DAs/ADVs/offensive OVs are fine in second rebuttal to an extent but i have a higher threshold for contextualization/warranting/weighing/etc.

3. DLs must be conceded in the following speech (either 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary) but also must be explained.

4. defense is not sticky 4 first summary. 

5. i appreciate good extensions. i do not care about card names. extend warrants with case. 

weighing:

1. weighing ideally should start in rebuttal. i'm not evaluating new weighing in final focus, including first final.

2. probability impact weighing doesn't exist. 

3. metaweigh/comparative weighing -- if there is none i'll probably prioritize pre-reqs/link-ins/co-ops -- if there is none of that i will just count how many weighing mechanisms there are. 

prog: 

i will do my best to judge to your standards. i dislike progressive debate so please only read it if there is justifiable abuse in the round (paraphrasing/disclosure dont count). 

1. general defaults (no RVIs, CI > reasonability, drop arg over debater, only if teams don't tell me what to do).

2. do not read theory against teams who clearly cannot engage with it (novices) i can tell and my ballot/your speaks will reflect that >:(.

4. little to no exp w K's, therefore K lit needs to be accessible -- you should also be extending K's/shells more rigorously than case bc it may be harder for me/others to grasp initially (especially if they are not topical).

5. no tricks.

i'm most receptive to substance but i'll do my best to evaluate whatever you read.

debate in a way that makes you happy and comfortable, post-rounding is fine, good luck!

Hi, I’m Lara. I’m a rising high school senior entering my 4th year of PF debate.

I will evaluate the debate off of whatever I flow. However, I am also swayed by clear, well-paced, logical, thorough, witty, tactful, graceful, and respectful argumentation. In other words, you can have the best arguments and evidence, but if you sound unsure, conceited, or plain stupid you will lose. That's how it works in the real world.

Be reasonable with your arguments; I will not be impressed by the quirky or outlandish for the sake of being quirky or outlandish. Also, don’t be ridiculous with your link chains; if you impact everything to climate change and nuclear war, with exceptions, you lose sight of the spirit of the issue.

Please explicitly weigh your arguments. Bring up all issues you want me to vote off of in your summary. +1 speaks for Yogi Berra quotes in final focus.

While I do not flow during cross, I pay close attention. Take advantage of this time to show your control over the debate, demonstrate full understanding of your arguments, trap your opponents, show off, etc. If you talk over, yell at, or incessantly interrupt your opponents, you have lost the debate.

Other notes:

• If the other team says something ridiculous, I will laugh at them in my head, but you must POINT IT OUT for me to consider it in my decision.

• If you start spreading I will fall asleep.

• Calling a ton of cards wastes time and will not impress me. Unless you use them strategically as part of your argument, they won’t help you win. In general, I care more about the content and logic of your offense/defense than your evidence.

I will not intervene against any argument that has a warrant and has an implication on how I should be writing my ballot. I feel most comfortable evaluating topical rounds. I will evaluate any arguments about why things other people do are unfair or are bad for debate. I typically look to the argument that is best weighed assuming a reasonable probability of it happening with rare exceptions that you should delineate in the round. Answer all offensive arguments in the rebuttal speeches and answer rebuilding arguments/ frontlines when extending defensive arguments. The earlier the better.

Hello!

So glad to see everyone on campus this weekend!

I am a sophomore at Harvard competing primarily in APDA. I did a significant amount of PF in high school (Richard Montgomery HS) and won the tournament in 2022.

I'm ready to evaluate any arguments you'd like to run. That being said, please

1. Weigh
2. Warrant
3. Have high-quality evidence
4. Consider theory sparingly. I am relatively unfamiliar with evaluating these arguments at a technical level.

Most of all, take it easy. I hope that good argumentation and the best debates are exciting and fun for all involved.

If you'd like more details about my judging, this paradigm by a teammate is quite representative.

Flow judge who will adapt to the debaters. Debate in a way that you enjoy & makes everyone comfortable!

howdy! i'm lawrence (any pronouns) and i did pf at montgomery blair. i now study environmental studies at yale where i do a bit of coaching. if anything here doesn't make sense/if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, contact me at lawrence.tang@yale.edu!

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

im a bit detached from the debate community. i will still draw cool extension arrows but you shouldn't assume i know anything about the topic or ur uber-cool groundbreaking meta-strategy.

general thingies

i will evaluate any argument as long as it isn't violent, exclusionary or compromises anyone's safety (be it bigoted arguments or lack of warning)*. include content warnings and an anonymous opt-in process. all participants in a round (including judges) need to opt-in. here's an example of an opt-in form!

i can handle most pf speeds but i'm also a bit rusty. don't use speed as an exclusionary tool.

no big emphasis on evidence -- how you spin your evidence matters more. i encourage cards though. i'll avoid calling evidence unless it's impossible to resolve the round otherwise.

i have a pretty bad poker face.

i view debate as a game of probabilities with every round having some uncertainty left up to the judge (weighing impacts, evaluating defense, etc). you should minimize that uncertainty and maximize the probability that i vote for you. assume that i'll make some mistake -- i'm not a robot!

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

• signpost and respond to arguments in the order they're made

• err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, many args I've seen have been super blippy/unwarranted and have left me pretty confused

general rule: the later an argument is made, the less weight i'll give to it. defense is sticky for first summary. don't read defense on your own offensive. concede defense immediately after the speech it was read in.

tempted to say probability weighing doesn't exist. if both teams give me weighing that's cool but i don't know how to resolve that so please interact with the weighing already read.

everything you want me to vote off has to be in final focus even if it's conceded. you don't have to do as much work but please at least breathe on them.

if i can't resolve the round without intervening, i'll presume whoever lost the flip.

progressive stuff: above-average understanding, but don't be exclusive

my defaults are:

• disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, but theory on these is iffier

• fairness is not a voter, rvis bad, CI > reasonability, drop the argument over debater

Phil/FW - some background knowledge but not much. make sure you're not just regurgitating weird academic language and actually explain ideas in normal english.

T - tbh i don't think i've run across a pf situation that needed a t shell. you're fine just saying something is non-topical. i also disagree with the nebel t.

Theory - most shells in pf are fluff. absent legitimate abuse in round, i'll vote on theory but i won't like it. disclosure and paraphrasing are more valid but still iffy.

Kritiks - i wrote a cap k once. familiar with some lit (biopower, orientalism, setcol) but not from debate pov. your strategy can't rely on background knowledge or me reading your evidence. iffy on arguments that weaponize identity or structural violence for the sole sake of a ballot. if you're reading these arguments, be genuine.

other things

• ask as many questions as you want. postround me. i'm always learning and would love feedback!

• always looking for more music, book (literally any type of media) recommendations, so if you have any hidden bangers please lmk!

*given my positionality, i recognize that i'm not neutral and cannot operate under a veil of objectivity. i don't trust my judgment in determining what is violent. however, i fail to see a better alternative :(

lay judg

Last updated: April 22, 2020 for Plastic TOC

Questions? Speech Docs? Email: clarlczz143@gmail.com

Update after Day 1 of the Plastic TOC: I'm bored of substance. 2 implications:

1. Run some progressive stuff. However, if you are not comfortable with it, by all means, let's talk some more mish-mash about Maduro. If you run it, at least understand it enough to be able to win a round on it. I like good progressive debates, not ones that make me cringe in my seat.

2. Me telling you to run progressive arguments =/= raid the backfiles. I've seen theory shells and K's that can be read at <= 200 WPM.

3. Paraphrasing and disclosure theory are often applicable in PF, but also many frivolous theory shells are also applicable and something I always did in LD. Saying that "Debaters must change their profile picture to one of Jack Johnson holding his timer up" and the standard is "Learning to tell mom its time for my juice box" is funny, unique, and always welcome.

========================

5 Minutes before the round

========================

On a scale from 1-5 on familiarity:

LD prefs: (1) Topical Affs; (1) LARP; (2) Phil; (3) Kritiks; (4) High Theory; (1) Theory/T; (2-4) Tricks

PF prefs: Given how these args are run in PF, generally nothing I haven't seen before is happening in each of those above categories so I can evaluate it pretty well. Prolly a (1-2) in your book.

What I need from you to judge well:

-SLOW DOWN FOR IMPORTANT THINGS: I can flow pretty fast but I can't catch all those short analytics at high speed, especially on interpretations, tags, author names, years, or plan texts. If I don't understand you the first time I hear the argument, I won't evaluate it. Furthermore, If I say slow/clear, it means I already missed a couple arguments

-WEIGH: If both teams get offense but no one weighs, I will default to presumption (defaults: 1st speaking in PF, Aff in LD). Compare between warrants, impacts, internal links.

-OVERVIEWS: Give overviews at the top of your speeches show me how the round breaks down, the big picture, why are you winning. In PF, debaters love saying "overview on their case" and proceed to read generic responses to case. Don't. Read those responses on case and crystallize the round in the overview

Other preferences:

-Saying "extend case/[card name]/argument" or anything like the sort on conceded arguments is enough extending. If there were responses made, extend the warrant as well.

===============================

If you have the time, here is some more

================================

Experience

I debate on Montgomery Blair High School. I have 3 years of LD and 2 years of PF experience, going into my 3rd PF year. Qualled to TOC this year.

I read mostly LARP, but also a lot of Kant and Scanlon, Levinas, frivilous theory, and disclosure theory every time it applied.

How I judge

I take the path of least intervention. By the end of the round, I will go through the flow and craft a ballot for both teams. Whichever ballot requires the least amount of intervention is the one that reflects my decision. This means that doing embedded clash between different flows are very helpful.

With that said, there are two types of intervention that are common (see full explanation on Bob Overing's paradigm):

Interpretive Intervention:

-This "refers to a judge’s need to use background knowledge for clarification". Filling in the gaps in your acronyms or rhetoric with my own understanding is necessary if you do not to the explanation (e.g. RVI probably means Reverse Voting Issue). This also goes the other way as well. If a debater uses the wrong jargon, but I understand the argument, I won't hold that against you.

Evaluative Interpretation:

Bob says: "Evaluative intervention refers to a judge’s need to compare argument quality to reach a conclusion". I disagree. As I said above, if both teams get offense but no one weighs, I will default to presumption (defaults: 1st speaking in PF, Aff in LD).

How to read the rest of this paradigm

Likes/dislikes: These are not defaults or mandates: These will not affect how I judge because I take the path of least intervention. These are listed because [a] they are valuable for better rounds [b] judge adaptation affects your speaks

Defaults: These are not mandates. They are what I will default to absent any compelling/obvious argumentation on the contrary. For example, "Fairness is not a voter" by itself is not a reason for me to shift from my default. If you provide a warrant like, "there are always instances of abuse in a round so it is impossible to correct them all", would cause me to shift from my default.

Strong Views:

-Tournament rules(e.g. speech times, prep time). No matter how convincing your Delueze K is, I am not gonna give you a 10 minute rebuttal. That said, going over time by 5 seconds is not a reason to drop you.

-Prep time ends when you save your speech doc

-Make all the evidence you read accessible to your opponents. Full text disclosure is a great practice, as well as not paraphrasing. If that isn't possible, flashing case if asked is good, too

-I will stop the round if any instances where the safety of debaters in the room is compromised. Do not make blatantly discriminatory arguments or not providing a content warning for a sensitive topic.

Strategy

Likes----------

-Basic strategy: diminishing marginal return, term-setting, pre-emption, misdirection

-establishing multiple routes to the ballot early on (and should be made clear in an overview)

Dislikes----------

-Solely relying on dropped responses

-Poor time allocation. In PF, if you have a good 2,2 split in 2nd rebuttal, thats sexy

Crossfire

Crossfire is binding

I am listening pretty hard, but not flowing. Generally, when you say "my opponents conceded in crossfire blah blah blah", I remember what the blah is.

Evidence

I can put it no better than David Kinane:

"Analysis is a perfectly fine replacement for under-warranted or maybe even miscut evidence that is analyzing something or making a predictive claim. I truly think debaters care too much about evidence, and one of the only differences between a debater making an argument and an author making an argument is that the author was able to afford to gain arbitrary qualifications. If you expect me to drop a debater for miscut evidence, read theory."

Topical Contentions/LARP

Likes----------

-Plastic TOC: I debated this topic so Unique args are a big Like

-Unique args that are from unexpected parts of the topic

-Very timely Politics DAs

-Advantage counterplans

-IMPACT TURNS

-meta weighing

-Conditional counter plans

-Multiple contentions

Dislikes----------

-Actor counterplans

-Monocontentions

Phil

Likes----------

-Frameworks that actually exclude offense. Xavier Roberts-Gaal said it best: "I’m always a little bit confused when debaters spend time justifying an elaborate framework, when the framework doesn’t exclude any sort of turn."

-Weighing offense on the opposing framework

-A clear value criterion

Dislikes----------

-Theoretically justified frameworks

-Using presumption as the strategy

-Using jargon without explaining it

Defaults----------

-Epistemic confidence

Kritiks

Likes----------

-Specific links to the AC

-High theory is a big like (not pessimism arg, those are a definite dislike) e.g. Baudrillard or smth idk much high theory. If you read this, really explain it to me and def send me a speech doc because I am gonna learn it after round

Dislikes----------

-Using jargon without explaining it

-Discourse ROBs: As Aminesh Joshi put it, "It is no longer edgy to break debate"

-Floating PIKs: def abusive but we have theory for that

-Exclusive ROBs made to exclude the other team

Theory/T

Likes----------

-Specific offense that is beyond those backfiles. In particular, paraphrasing theory is still very much in development, so new arguments are always interesting to see affect the PF norm.

-Giving me an explanation of what the topical version of the aff would look like

-Paraphrasing/Disclosure theory

-Theory that takes out tricks, spikes, or Scarsdales stupid burden affs

-Theory against pre-fiat offense

-Saying "Counterinterp: I defend the violation" to save time

-Creative counter interps

-Meta theory

-Gut check reasonability: use it at your own risk. Remember that my tolerance for abuse it pretty high because abuse makes for funny debate rounds

-Performative contradiction to the interp

-Multiple violations

-drop the argument as part of the strategy

-Combo shells that actually use those different abuse stories to generate specific offense

-Going for weighing like K vs T, or Substance vs Theory

-Very specifc interps e.g. "...must disclose on the NDCA PF wiki...on the 2020 NSDA January topic..."

-Reading independent voters e.g. prep time is an indepedent voter because it affects how much research debaters must do and therefore how much sleep they get

-Text of the interp i-meets e.g. I am an advocator, not a debater

Dislikes----------

-PFers, hey, yeah, I'm talking to you. If you run theory and it made me cringe in my seat (and I visibly cringe), don't expect your speaks to be amazing. If you run this, please run it well.

-Using I/we in order to beat back the shell. No one can verify what you did unless there are recordings or screenshots. Theory is a purely logical game, so use logic, not appeals to my emotion.

-Paragraph theory. If you run theory, make sure your opponents can also sufficiently respond.

-Spec shells

-Brackets theory

-Grey text theory

-Norm-setting arguments

Defaults----------

-No need to extend conceded paradigm issues, the interpretation, or the violation.

-No RVI

-Drop the argument

-Spirit of the interp

-Fairness is a voter; education is a voter

-Competing interps, although I like reasonability. Read a CI just in case

Tricks

Likes----------

-Innovative, intelligent, nuanced a prioris

Dislikes----------

-Most of the rest of it because they are recycled in backfiles

Currently teaching debate, used to compete, haven't competed in a long time

full paradigm