Tabroom.com

Bay Fundraiser Tournament

2020 — San Jose, CA/US

Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ayush Agarwal Hire 8 rounds

Bryan Benitez SpiderSmart Learning Center at Sugar Land

Stefan Boone Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas

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

Daniel Chen Hire 8 rounds

Ishraq Farhan Hire

Lauryn Lee BCAcademy

Melinda Jihui Li Hire

Adam Mimou Hire 8 rounds

Gage Rodriguez Hire 8 rounds

Adhit Sankaran Hire

Srikar Satish Hire

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 4:43 AM CDT

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

Theory (but not stupid and friv)
Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
Framing / Meta Weighing
I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

Anya Tang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 7:35 AM EDT

Please put me on the email chain 4ristotle.x@gmail.com.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line and uses creative round vision. Debaters reading fun arguments and having fun is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event and I greatly appreciate it when teams use grand cross differently/creatively (i.e. students who use grand to ask how everyone's day is; students who use grand to discuss and propose moves towards equity in the event). I believe Ks need alts in PF.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge infrequently now. I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are just my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity.

Speaks- My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain high most of the time, especially during bubble rounds. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you. If there's something really egregious pointed out to me in the round, speaks will reflect that.

Speed - Number your responses. Please. More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson after the round with you.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions. Please be respectful of my time. Ask me for lit recs! (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts- For every student I judge, but especially students of color, queer/trans students, misogyny-affected students, students with disabilities, and first generation/low-income students: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. Y'all are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: I am a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage, and a good judge for you if this is your millionth time reading your favorite K author. I have the same expectations for your engagement with the scholarship in both cases; this is to say, I hope you provide a rigorous and original synthesis of the author(s) that you read with the topic that you choose to think through/with/against/beyond. What does this look like: you are identifying specific parts of the topic that you are critiquing, articulating how the impact interacts with the affirmative, and explaining why I need to frame the round in a certain way.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and critical scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Direct outing. Financial status, disability, queerness/transness, gender, trauma -- if you force your opponent to disclose that they have a disability to avoid a theory shell, I will be unhappy. I like it even less when y'all spend half an hour before round digging up your opponent's personal information, school, neighborhood, etc. It's unsafe, violating, and makes a lot of assumptions. If your opponent argues that this should be a reason to drop you, I will be inclined to drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. I evaluate direct outing differently from arguments that a certain model/method outs people and renders them vulnerable to structures of harm. What does this look like? "Are you queer?" "Can you afford a coach?" "Do you have a disability?" I understand debaters have good intentions and want to make rounds accessible sometimes. I also understand finding spaces of affinity is difficult. But I ask that y'all not do it under the competitive tensions of an adjudicated round. One way that has been helpful for me (and perhaps you have other suggestions) has been to ask, "What are some things I can do to make the round accessible for the both of us? For me, it would help to have 14pt or larger font for our tags."

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Zachary Thomas Resident Prep

Last changed on Thu February 17, 2022 at 4:55 PM CDT

Tempus Debate

College: Harvard Community College '27

By the transitive property, I have over 20 Gold PF Bids.

I debated for Vestavia Hills High School for 2 years and then I moved so now I mainly coach teams. I mainly competed on nat circ so I am able to adapt to any style you would like.

Im completely tech and tabula rasa , so I judge rounds off the flow. Ive seen rounds where I could have technically voted off a leaf falling off a plant has a better link in to extinction than nuke war so take that as you want ig. Debate is a game. Tbh, debate lay or hard tech in front of me idgaf!

Main Reason for debate: Have Fun. Learn how to become better from your losses.

If you give me some fun phrases during the round such as "they dropped this contention so hard I might have even heard a thud." or "This gives us the cleanest access to our impact. It's so clean it's squeaky!" I will give you an extra speak. Im a cool judge, don't make this a boring round.

-----

Pref Chain

(1 being pref me and 5 being strike me)

Command+ F Progressive and you'll get there if that is what you want to know about btw

Trad Deb8: 1

Speed (250 wpm w/o doc anything above, j send a doc idgaf): 1

DA: 1

FW: 1

Theory/Topicality: 2

Kritique (Idpol, Word PIK, Performance): 2

Kiritique (advanced/high theory; Baudy, Delueze, Marx etc - ill try my best): 3-4

Counter Plan: 3-4

Phil: 5

LARP: 2-3

Tricks: 5 - I dare you lmao

Spikes: 5

-----

TL;DR

- PF paradigm is at the beginning, LD is at the bottom

- 100% tab and tech --> AL circuit, just treat me as the most tech judge.

- Im cool with speed. Especially cuz its all online, id like that you send me a speech doc j for AC/NC & AR/NR. If your rebuttal isn't on a doc, that's fine.

- Go crazy with args. Ive run super crazy cases before so go for it if you want, just make sure you know your own case. Run death good if u want idgaf. Btw Thicc Nicc Bostrom 4Life :)

- For any progressive arguments you want to run, all I ask for when you run prog args is that you send me a speech doc for it so I can get it all down. Keep ur own time. For more details, j look at the prog arg section.

- I understand the need for calling cards, i do it, just don't take more than 2 minutes to pull up a card. Everything you say should have the cut card with it. Do not misconstrue ev. L20, no exceptions.

- Second rebuttal must frontline all offensive/defensive responses made on your case.

- Defense is not sticky, so you must extend anything you want in FF in summary.

-TKOs are a thing and im willing to allow it but i have never judged a round where there is no way to go and find a ballot. So be careful when calling out a TKO before like 2nd summary or final. If u mess up, its gg, u lost bud.

-----

***Most Online Tournaments***

Yes Add me to the chain zthomas8491@gmail.com

Because this tournament is online, please send me speech docs to my email (zthomas8491@gmail.com). My internet can be spotty at some times so I recommend to not talk to fast during summary or final focus because I might miss it, unless you use a speech doc for summary and final focus for some reason. Also, for speech docs, please have cut cards on it, NO PARAPHRASING PLEASE --> I will doc speaks if there is any miscut evidence! If you have another case that isn't paraphrased, please read it instead. Paraphrasing in PF has become a major ethics issue so try to have normal cut cards instead pls, ty.

-----

***Tempus Debate LD Camp Tournament***

Ik im PF chair but i have experience in LD. LAWs topic was fun so run whatever you want tbh. Im fine with it. Im p chill. If you do plan on spreading for some reason: 1. you need to annunciate and 2. don't be abusive to your opponent. Speaks will be chill dw. You prob won't know too much of what i have put in teh LD section so i wouldn't worry about it. Just use what you have learned and apply it. This is a learning experience for you!

-----

Paradigm

Novice PF:

If you are just starting out...these are 2 really good resources to learn the basics of PF

https://pfforward.weebly.com/

https://www.learnpublicforum.com/

Couple notes just for novices...do these 4 things and do them correctly and I will definitely give you good speaks and you might even win.

1--> Speak Clearly (MEGA IMPORTANT) if you don't speak clearly, then I have no idea what to flow on paper and you will prob take the L :(

2 --> Weigh weigh weigh (SUPER IMPORTANT) look a little bit lower in my paradigm nad you'll find the weighing section

3 --> Collapse (PRETTY IMPORTANT) as a novice that was in your shoes, i know you want to go for every argument but it really is that good of a strat, instead go for your strongest argument and really flesh it out on the flow.

4--> Frontline & Extend (VERY IMPORTANT) if you don't extend arguments on the flow, I will have no idea what you are going for and you will probably sadly take the L :(

-----

Other notes for Novices...

I will not allow novices to run any progressive arguments because most novices I have judged, they all said they new what they were doing but then completely failed in debating the argument.

If you have any questions after round, ask them but don't be too aggressive please, so no post-rounding my decision.

-----

Varsity PF:

Favorite Debate:

A good substance debate buuutttt, I'll evaluate theory. If you want to run frivolous theory, go for it. If you can prove to me that Ghandi said, "If freedom don't ring, the choppa gonna sing" instead of MLK, i'll buy it. I ask that you confirm with your opponents if they are OK for you to run theory. If I think you are running theory on a team that doesn't know how to respond to it or have never experienced a progressive round, PLEASE do not run it otherwise I WILL DOCK SPEAKS and possilbly DROP YOU for setting bad norms in the debate space. You have to keep it fair otherwise people are not going to be happy. I'd recommend you run a substance debate more though because that will lead to a way better ballot as I understand a regular debate more. I debate this topic in a lot of tournaments so I understand it pretty well so it would be better if you do run a regular substance debate. And for the love of god, please don't run disclosure...it is so dumb. Good Luck :))

-----

tech>truth:

Arguments need to be well warranted: tell me why the link/internal link/impact matters. I believe that there is a great value to flow-centric, line-by-line debating. Though I don't claim to have the best flow in the country, I believe many debates can be simplified and made clearer by emphasizing the basics of lining arguments up and answering them accordingly. Not only will teams have a better chance to win my ballot by attempting some semblance of organization, but I believe the overall clash of argumentation that would result from this focus could yield more in depth scholarship and understanding of the topic being discussed. Debaters should clearly flag pieces of evidence they want evaluated after the debate. Failure to do so will more than likely result in me evaluating the round sans calling for cards.

-----

Clarity>speed:

I would put myself at a 7/10 for speed, so...DO NOT SPREAD. Max = 275 wpm. I do sometimes speak like 350 wpm but its pretty stupid so don't do it. Just because I debate doesn't mean I want people spreading like crazy. If you want to spread, you should try out policy debate, it'll be a good experience for you. If you truly feel the urge to spread, share a speech doc with me (zthomas8491@gmail.com). I believe that spreading is useless because it just shows that you want to get a bunch of ink on the paper but you will probably be dropping half of the stuff so why don't you tell me 3 or 4 really good warranted analysis responses instead of reading 8 to 15 responses that have the crappiest warrant and a horrible analysis. I'm ok with speed as long as it is clear, if not, I will say clear to tell you that I am unable to understand. If I still can't understand your speech, I will not flow it and I might dock a speak or 2.

-----

Warranting:

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

-----

WEIGH:

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

If you *meta-weigh properly* i will give you a 30 even if you didn't match up with the requirements for a 30.

-----

Off-time Roadmap/Signpost:

Right before you start the speech, give me an off-time roadmap BUT DON'T SAY THE PHRASE "OFF TIME ROADMAP", I'll take 1 speak away if you do. Even though you give me an offtime roadmap --> PLEASE tell me where you are on the flow (signpost). If I look confused, then it probably means that I don't know where you are and it makes it much harder for me to properly flow the round

-----

Time:

You guys are BIG KIDZ so KEEP YOUR OWN TIME

-----

Flex-Prep:

Im fine with it, i think it can be useful sometimes but don't abuse it pls.

-----

Cross:

Don't be a jerk but don't be a wimp. I like cross to get tense, but not to where someone is about to cry because you are being an overly dominant bully. Remember, cross-fire is for asking clarification questions and trying to get good information from the other teams. I don't flow cross, so if you think something important came up in cross and it has an impact on the round, bring it up. Don't bring up some random argument from cross if it is just a small argument compared to the ones where there can be some good clash.

-----

Frontline

IF YOU DON'T FRONTLINE, YOU BASICALLY SCREW YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING, IF BOTH TEAMS DON'T FRONTLINE, THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT ROUND TO JUDGE AND TO WATCH.

--> 2nd rebuttal must respond to the 1st rebuttal --> if you drop the points made in 1st rebuttal, thats a rip for you, you have just given up all defense on your case and they have shredded your case apart

--> 1st summary must respond to the 2nd rebuttal > if you drop the points made in 2nd rebuttal, rip to you, you have just screwed your chance of winning.

NO NEW ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN 2ND SUMMARY OR FINAL FOCUS!! I give a very small amount of leniency for the 1st summary as they do have to frontline the 2nd Rebuttal but, you should definitely collapse in summary so it makes it easier for you to properly warrant your responcss and make arguments that are for big brains. (a frontline is not a "new argument/evidence btw in case you didn't know that).

-----

Collapse:

Collapsing is definitely based on how the round goes but I recommend that you do it so you can pave the way for a better ballot. Unless you are completely destroying the team, you should collapse. I don't care tbh, but collapsing makes the round much cleaner and more smooth and less things all over the place that I have to eval.

-----

Extensions:

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

If you don't really get this by now you're probably gonna lose the round.

-----

Offense>weighing>defense

Anything that you want in the FF must be in the summary

I will not flow any new analysis or evidence in FF

-----

Evidence

these are OK cut cardz //// This a godly cut card( Thank you Christian Vasquez for the OK cut cards and thank you to the GRIDIRON CHOPPA....COLE STACEY for the godly cut cardz).

If the card is miscut or cannot be found within a decent amount of time (2min) it will be dropped from my flow. In the off chance you paraphrase cards (pls don't but if it is ur only option), it should not be misconstrued and the actual card should still be cut. You MUST have the cut card.

-----

Overviews

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense --> --> --> --> I do not react well to these and find them extremely abusive, but I will flow them. However, if this new contention comes out in second rebuttal the other team can just tell me it's abusive / to cross it off the flow and I will. If I cross it off, it was a waste of your time and mine.

2) An overall response to their case. --> --> --> --> GREAT IDEA.

3) Weighing overviews. --> --> --> --> AMAZING IDEA

Weighing>>>>>>>>>Overall Response>>>>>>>>>>>New Offense, ie super offensive DA in 2nd rebuttal

-----

---

+Progressive Arguments+ --> *Mainly for PF but can be applied to LD also*

---

*I will tell you if i don't want you running Prog args in a round dependent on how i feel abt it...so tell me and your opponenets if you are running a prog arg and i will let you know if it is a green light for it (the only time you are exempt from it is if the opposing team paraphrased for example but couldn't give any cards for you, i would allow paraphrase theory to be run)*

*If you are a novice and you get theory run on you, yes, i will give the other team low speaks but j saying "im. a novice..you can't run theory on me" does not count for me. J make a novice theory shell saying why running theory on novices is bad and ill prob eval it (only if it is actually decent and makes sense) and ill j go to the substance debate.*

-----

BQ:

Ima be straight, math = dumb

I cut a card abt it, that's how strong i feel abt math lmao.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Peo4ZpfiklAuNsyTHpM7fVzqt9K4cbO8TT9HKPgqrkM/edit?usp=sharing

-----

Fiat:

- If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through Congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

-----

Framework:

- I default to Cost Benefit Analysis, otherwise known as the Analysis of Benefits and Costs. But, I am fine with framework debates, they make the round more organized because it kind of forces you to properly flesh out certain arguments in order to best access the framework.

- When reading a framework that has to do with structurally oppressed people (especially with the Septober '20 topic) don't make a framework that can basically be turned against you, like PLEASE GIVE A WARRANT on why these marginalized people should be "solved" and why they come first before others. Basically, don't read a framework that can be contested with util.

- Fairness is not necessarily an impact; it certainly may implicate the education that the aff produces, but calling fairness "procedural" doesn't bestow upon it some mystical external impact without additional explanation (i.e. without an actual impact attached to that). Fairness is an abstract value. Like most values, it is difficult to explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven. It's hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" It is pretty easy to demonstate why you should presume in favor of fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity (for example, teams expect that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothes). But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

- If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than most attempts to articulate one for fairness/skills/deliberation, but they're not unassailable: "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would) and "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

-----

T/Theory:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

- Paraphrasing bad, disclosure is ok, misgendering bad, no tw bad. I won't hack for anything, but this is my general viewpoint of these issues.

- No RVIs. --> "RVIs are dumb, you don't get to win for proving you are ethical. I suppose I can see myself voting for an RVI if someone horrifically mishandles it, but if theres warranted clash on the issue of RVIs, I generally think no-RVIs." - Enebo

- I am down for some frivolous theory.

- I like theory shells to be in standard form (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters) no paragraph form.

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

- I won't necessarily default to competing interps, reasonability, or other frameworks, etc. There are general parts of T (interp, violation, standards-voters, impacts, etc). If you go for T, then give me thorough reasons to vote for T. On aff, I think it is strategic that you can make theory or pre-fiat arguments that precede Topicality.

- For any T argument, if you want my ballot on it, you need to win the interpretation/violation, give a good explanation of the impacts (voters), and win some standards which prove your interpretation solves the impacts. This stuff can get developed in the block, but just extending a shell isn't going to do it.

- Theoretical reasons to prefer/reject an ethical theory are generally pretty terrible arguments. This includes: Must Concede FW, May Not Concede FW, Util is Unfair, Only Util is Fair, etc. You should prove that you're right, not that it's educational to pretend that you are. Many 'role of the ballot' arguments are just theoretically justified frameworks by another name, and I feel similarly about these. I also do not assume by default that your warrant comes logically prior to your opponent's because you referenced "education" or "ground"; the falsity of a standard seems at least as salient a reason not to require debaters to use it.

- Competing interpretations means that I evaluate theory through an offense-defense paradigm; it does not require a counter-interpretation. A corollary is that I literally do not understand how a difference between potential and articulated abuse would function. I am, of course, willing to listen to arguments which dispute either of those claims, but they’re an uphill battle.

- I will not vote for reasonability absent an explicit bright line. I prefer standards-level strength of link weighing (who has a better internal link to fairness or education) over generic fairness vs education debates, although the latter tends to be more strategic. Absent weighing, I don’t have a default preference between fairness and education. I default to dropping the argument, not the debater, on all theory questions except status theory (conditionality).

-----

Disads:

- Don't read in 2nd rebuttal

- If u do read it, u must do weighing with it, or provide some sort of analysis that gives me a comparison between ur arg and theirs.

- DO NOT, run it as a 10th contention at the bottom of ur case j for 2nd speaking team to have to cover that too. DA's that act as overviews are the best.

- I like the specific DA debate, if you decide to go for DA(s). This means that when you win the DA, you should also be winning a DA-case comparison (for example: DA outweighs case, DA turns case, etc.).

- "Zero risk" is certainly possible but often unlikely. What I mean by this is that if the neg says "The plan leads to an increase in hair loss, and warming causes extinction" and the aff says "No link--no warranted reason the aff leads to hair loss and no internal link between hair loss and warming," I'm not going to decide that since the aff only made defensive arguments that there's "only a risk" of the DA occurring. Smart defensive arguments (including and sometimes especially analytics) can take out entire disads and advantages, but if they're not terminal I am going to be more susceptible to "only a risk" logic.

-----

Kritiks:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

- I have started to judge, debate, and spec more rounds with Ks now. I think that PF definitely has room for K arguments to be read.

- I would say I'm comfortable to eval Ks, with that being said, I'm most sympathetic to K's that are using the round to make structural change within the debate community, ie. Word PIKs, Idpol, Performance type stuff. And those are the ones I'm most comfortable with. That doesn't mean u can't run Marxism or Delueze, Baudy etc, j dumb it down for me lol. I'm p chill when it comes to this stuff, especially since Ks are slowly moving into PF.

- No Identity Ks if you have no relation to that group...ill doc ur speaks like hell

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

- The "aff didn't do enough" K isn't doing much for me. If this is your best option, I'd recommend T instead. Perms solve it and it's not offense.

- K debaters that can't debate the case enough to prove that the aff doesn't simply reduce military presence but somehow reinforces it or some other bad process in trying to do so are having a really hard time winning with me. You need links. "You touched the gov't" isn't getting the job done. If this is your best strat, I am not the judge for you.

- Negative state action undermines a lot of "we shouldn't have to debate as the gov't" args, absent more detailed elaboration by the aff team reading a non- topical or non-plan aff. I can personally entertain some reasons why this arg might still be true, but teams have yet to advance args that are not facile extensions of the standard "gov't bad" arg in explaining this for me. "Decrease military" and "gov't bad" are in the same direction on face. You'll need to do more to prove that they are not.

-----

K Affs

- K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

- K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively. This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

- K BECOMING AFF: Truth is bad. These affs include Postmodernism, Intersectionality, & Black Optimism. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

-----

CPs

- I have hit a CP once, and it was when i did an LD tourney, so take that as you want, im not a huge fan of them so run them at a ur own risk.

- Generic CP debates aren’t too interesting, but a well coupled counter plan and net benefit can be cool. Don’t assume I’ll kick the CP for you and assume that it’s conditional unless specified. Winning a high risk of a DA and a risk of the counterplan solving better than the aff makes for an easy neg ballot. For the aff team, point out solvency deficits, shady theory points, put offense on the CP, and make warranted permutations (more than 3 is probably not legit).

-----

Presumption:

In the terrible case that the whole round become a wash (i would most likely give low speaks if this happens btw) i presume 1st speaking team.

-----

LD:

I dabbled in LD throught my 2nd year of debating. Im p chill with it ngl.

Some things for LD...

CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

I will reference the doc when flowing, but I pay attention to what you're saying (won't miss any extemped args in the 1AC/1NC, and won't flow stuff that's in the doc but that you didn't read. Just lmk if u are extemping args).

Clarity > speed. You can go faster/be less clear for args that you've sent in the doc that I have a visual reference for. If you're not flashing your analytics don't blaze through them. Lowering speaks for entirely pre-written/scripted rebuttal

Sequencing, preclusion, weighing, and clearly delineated interactions are the keys to resolvability; I want my RFD to be repeating back arguments you've made. Most frustrating debates are when both sides are extending things that take out the other side's route to the ballot without weighing/interacting the two args that indict each other. Absent clear weighing I default to strength of link (i.e. two conceded fairness standards indict each other but some education standard is conceded, so I vote on the education standard).

Helpful to extend arguments by content (“extend permissibility affirms” vs. “extend spike 3 sub-point B”), and I have a very low threshold for extensions if an arg is conceded ("extend the framework" is sufficient if the framework is straight dropped, and don't even bother extending paradigm issues if its a theory debate and you both agree), but its still up to you to implicate dropped args strategically and explain what it takes out/why the drop is relevant

Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

Be nice to novices and traditional debaters, or else your speaks will suffer.

I don’t like it when the debaters are just jerks to each other in CX.

I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

My default assumption is nothing is important until an argument is made for why it is. This means if you read theory without drop the debater or arguments without framing mechanisms, I’ll just ignore them. This in particular applies to independent voters and perf con arguments because they don’t justify why they supersede other substantive issues and are drop the debater. The only things that I will default are consequentialism, strength of link in the absence of weighing, procedurals first, and epistemic confidence.

-----

Speaks:

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Make me laugh and you’ll get higher speaks

30 - YOU ARE A COLE STACEY LEVEL DEBATER WITH ICONIC RISHI LINGALA VIBES AND HIS AMAZING SKILLS AT CARROLTON R1 (uncommon for me to give out) Belongs in late outrounds, flawless speaking ability and strategy [Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lmfao.] IF you are a RESIDENT then you will get auto 30. IF you know the ways of a THAD, auto 30 if u are wrong, auto L25

29.5 - Chad level ("bruh" - Cole Stacey) Mid/late outrounds, excellent speaking ability and strategy

29 - lad level ("ok bud" - Christian Rhoades) Should break, really good speaker, makes smart decisions

28.5 - Could break, could improve in EITHER speaking ability OR decision making, but excellent in 1 category

28 - Above average, could break, still a good debater, but has room for improvement in speaking and decision making

27.5 - Average, Either a good speaker and flawed decision maker, or a poor speaker and good decision maker

27 - Slightly below average, definitely has plenty of room for improvement as a debater

26.5 - Either struggling to speak during the round OR doesn't seem to understand their argument OR ignored my paradigm

26 - Struggling to speak during the round AND doesn't seem to understand their argument AND ignored my paradigm

25 - Offensive to others during the round

0-24: im sorry mate but i kinda failed at everything and did some bad stuff, oop

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS...*unless i am told not to by the tournament directors or if a team does not want me to disclose. *

-----

Credit to Sam Goldstone for this...

"A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH"

"ok bud" - Christian Rhoades

Shrayes Upadhyayula Hire

Vinay Vellore Hire 8 rounds

Claire Wang Hire

Florence Zhu Hire 8 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

Bay Fundraiser Tournament

2020 — San Jose, CA/US

Judges Paradigm List

Judges