Tabroom.com

NYCUDL Summer Institute Tournament

2020 — New York City, NY/US

PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Kekeli Amekudzi Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 2:54 PM EDT

Email Chain

Kekeli6504@gmail.com

Quick notes (Credit to Chelsea Hodgeson for this)

I’m only going to flow what you read, not what is sent on the email chain. The purpose of this is to provide an avenue in the event of contested evidence.

I do not flow cross ex/crossfire, it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding but the only way to execute this is to include it in a speech.

Background:

Hi, my name is Kekeli (She/Her) and I am currently studying Environmental Science and International Studies at Emory University. I've done policy debate for three years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Congressional rounds before. I've run antiblackness, cap k, policy args, and a decent amount of theory. I’m fine with spreading but it is to your benefit that you are clear and slow down on tags and analytical arguments.

If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me it's bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

TLDR:

I will vote for most things. This includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory.

I generally believe that you should do what you do best, just make sure that you guide the judge through your strategy.

(However, for PF do not run disclosure that requires more than the constructives.)

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe I haven't judged that many rounds on this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise (see above)
3) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

4) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
5) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though my own experience was as a K debater (I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate my biases.

Safiatou Bah Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 3:17 PM EDT

debated in policy in high school

email - safib2026@gmail.com

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate @Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy and PF rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. I go by any/all pronouns. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements you will lose. also don't try to tell me climate change is real

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Ks, Counter Plans, and theory.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything.

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

Tryphena Bossman Hire 8 rounds

Tanav Chinthapatla Hire 8 rounds

Akash Choudhury TURQUOISE

Bishaka Dahal Hire 8 rounds

Samuel Davidson PERIWINKLE

Jemima Eastwood ROSE None

Shabnan Habib PINK

Amir Harris Hameed Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 8:47 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Amir and I debated at Westborough for 4 years on the local and national circuit

my email is: amir.hameed@emory.edu

Follow me on spotify

I judge flow but you should debate flay

I flow so I'll try to be as tech>truth as possible

If you do/say anything / read any argument that is sexist, racist, ableist, etc. , I won't hesitate to drop you with low speaks

Here's what'll win you my ballot, in no particular order:

1. Have fun and be nice, no one likes a toxic debate round and at the end of the day you should be enjoying this.

2a. I won't be listening too closely to cross and I won't vote off it, but if something big happens, bring it up in the next speech for me to consider it.

2b. Please don't just scream at each other in cross, keep it civil for all of our sakes

3. At a minimum, you should be front lining all responses to the contention you're going for and responding to offensive responses (turns, disads, etc.) in 2nd rebuttal.

4a. Weigh comparatively! Weighing is the easiest way to get my ballot, but you have to comparatively weigh, don't just state your impact again and say it outweighs on x,y,z, tell me why to prefer yours over your opponents

4b. Because weighing is so important, try doing it as early as possible, if you're in 1st rebuttal and run out of time, weigh! I'll probably give you higher speaks because it makes my job easier, and it's very smart.

4c. Link level weighing is so smart, I'm much more likely to vote on an argument that has a fleshed out link chain with comparative weighing against your opponents, than a weak link chain

5a. Collapsing is probably one of the highest IQ things you can do in a round, condensing the round to 1-2 main arguments is extremely smart and makes the round 100x better

5b. Extend all parts of the case argument you're collapsing on (Uniqueness, warrant, impact, etc.) but that doesn't mean re-read your case, try to summarize it to be more efficient

5c. You must respond to all responses made against the argument you're collapsing on.

6. Summary and FF should mirror each other, I won't evaluate arguments in FF that aren't in summary.

7. Build a narrative through the round, its super helpful for me

8. Final Focus should be all about writing my ballot for me; Tell me where, how, and why I'm voting for you and you've probably got my vote.

9a. Before your speech, give me a general overview of the structure, at a minimum tell me where you're going to start.

9b. Please signpost in your speeches, this is super important to me because if I don't know what you're responding to I will spend half of your speech messing with my flow and I will probably miss some of your responses.

10. I haven't debated in a while so if speed is your thing consider slowing down on a bit, I don't want to lose something important you say and it'll just make it easier for me to vote for you

Chelsea Hodgson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Clarity Houts Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 31, 2024 at 5:38 PM EDT

Parliamentary debate is an interesting and wonderful activity.

I think that the side which has thought more deeply about the topic should generally win the round - I appreciate a great creative argument but that argument needs to be true. My favorite kinds of arguments are absolutely true things that are often a blind spot to debaters.

I like feeling my opinion being actually changed by a certain argument, and I'm interventionist in that I think that if a rebuttal doesn't actually address a given point I will ignore it. Quality > quantity. I'm sure you've been taught (because I had been taught) that you should rebut every argument, even if you don't really have a great point to say. I disagree, and I appreciate when you have the 'round vision', and further, the respect for the truth, to know when a point is going to make it through and simply begin weighing earlier in the round. Strive towards your side of the truth, not just a win.

I will understand what you mean by nearly any theory or kritik. This does not mean I will be convinced by it. If you're making an argument about non-topical issues that are life-and-death and doing so carelessly, i.e. instrumentalizing them to win a debate round, I will give you very low speaks, and you will probably not win that round. This is not to say that such arguments are bad; I think they're important and good. You just have to treat them seriously and sincerely.

I will understand your points well if you have clear, linear warranting (x means y, y means z, and so on and so forth). If you don't have warrants or have insufficient warrants, it won't affect the outcome of the round unless the opposing side points out particular instances, which I think is a perfectly good rebuttal. I will still give you fewer speaks. If you're disorganized I will have a hard time flowing you, which will also lead to fewer speaks, and possibly you losing a round you think you ought to have won, because I have missed something important you've said.

If you do not weigh I will weigh for you.

Pet peeve: Don't talk about 'utilitarianism' as an alternative to 'morality.' Utilitarianism is a form of morality.

Pick motions that you know will be interesting to debate, not ones that you think you're the most likely to win or least likely to lose. You'll regret doing the inverse at some point.

If you are bigoted by accident I will drop speaks and, because bigotry is false, I'll ignore the point. I'll also talk to you after the round, and maybe to equity. If you're bigoted either out of unapologetic sincerity or because you think it was giving you some kind of competitive advantage I will drop you. I might still drop you if it's unintentional; it does detract, significantly.

Alanalee Hughes IVORY None

Etta Humes INDIGO

Last changed on Sat December 3, 2022 at 7:11 AM EDT

I debated for four years in pf (and two tournaments in policy). Here's what you need to know about my judging:

Please preflow before getting to round.

Warrants > evidence, always

You are not going to win my ballot by saying your opponents dropped some random card. If your opponents drop a solid warrant that is another story.

I don't intervene

That being said, before you run some squirly argument:

- the less true an argument is the lower my threshold for a response and the higher my threshold for a frontline (For example MAD is enough of a response to most nuke war arguments in my book, and proving MAD wouldn't apply is a very high burden of proof)

- Regardless of the quality of the argument, I will not vote off an argument that I cannot explain back to you. If I don't understand your argument, that is not intervention, that is you not doing the necessary work as a debater.

I do not call for cards unless specifically asked to

- If your argument relies entirely on a piece of evidence, you obviously have not done enough warranting. I will default to the team that warrants the best if I need to.

- Make responses to the substance of their argument not their evidence.

- If their evidence is very badly cut or misleading you can tell me to call for it, but if their argument is well warranted I will still vote for it. If you want me to vote against them because of their evidence you have to tell me that. Otherwise you can evidence challenge.

I will pay limited attention in cross

- you have to say everything in a speech if you want me to consider it in my decision

I don't like sticky D: that being said I will consider it if the response was not frontlined in rebuttal. If it was frontlined, it has to be in summary for me to consider it.

- I'm also not going to buy any sneaky extensions through grand cross, if you drop your impact or link in summary, you lose.

Respond to turns in 2nd rebuttal

Please weigh, you should make my decision for me.

- Weighing in rebuttal will boost your speaks

Ask me questions, I love talking through arguments and helping debaters, but it becomes problematic when its less of "how can I get better" and more "you should have voted this way for this reason."

Aeden Kamadolli PEARL

Enya Kamadolli TURQUOISE

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:31 AM EDT

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

Joseph Karaganis Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 22, 2021 at 1:29 PM EDT

LD:

I am a flow judge. Do not spread. I like Cap Ks.

If your opponent has read a utilitarian/on-balance framework, and you agree with it, you do not need to read your own utilitarian framework in your next speech, just say you agree with theirs.

PF:

I am a 'flow' judge, but I am a pro-interventionist. I think judge intervention makes debate better. I'm also pretty traditional.

Don't add me to the email chain.

Truth over Technology. Yet what is true is up to you. Convince me.

General

I will flow the round. Probably not well. I don't really like flowing.

Speak slowly, no spreading.

I won't evaluate/will tank speaks for -ist or problematic arguments.

Read trigger warnings or you lose.

DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY. Reexplain.

I will know if you are new in the two. Don't test me.

Warrants>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Evidence. You will lose if you don't read warrants.

I reserve the right to intervene on stupidity. If I think an argument is dumb, I will not vote off of it. Please explain your arguments to avoid this. Or just don't explain your stupid arguments.

I'll probably vote for whoever has a better understanding in cross of how the round is going.

Collapse by summary (offense and defense) FF should be a second summary, except less line by line.

2nd speaking team needs to respond to all 1st speaking team's offense in rebuttal.

No need to extend impacts.

I have very particular views on weighing/evidence/theory pls read.

Weighing

I evaluate the round through weighing. If you win weighing and offense, you win the round.

However, I don't like all weighing.

Weighing I don't evaluate:

- Probability. If you say that word you will get L26s. If you say '100% probability' you will get L25s.

- Clarity of link/impact: Doesn't mean anything.

- Strength of link: Nobody reads warrants for this stuff. You can't really.

- Urgency: No thank you.

- Timeframe: Also dumb.

- Weighing that involves defense.

- Reversibility: These words are meaningless to me.

- Food/Water/important things FIRST!!!!: It isn't weighing or a pre-req. It's just dumb. Don't read.

Weighing I evaluate:

- Magnitude/Scope/My impact is bigger: It's true. But don't say the word magnitude, or I will not be happy. Explain why. Numbers mean nothing to me.

- Pre-req/Short-circuit: Read this before second summary. It should make sense.

If you read weighing I have said I don't evaluate, I won't, and I'll intervene.

I evaluate framing arguments, but they need warrants.

I like meta-weighing.

Evidence

Debate is not about evidence. In fact, I don't evaluate evidence. Evidence is bad for debate.

No need to read evidence in rebuttal or extend evidence. Honestly, no need to read evidence in case.

I don't evaluate evidence clash. I don't care.

If your offense in the round boils down to whether or not a piece of evidence is good, you'll probably lose (if your opponents have warrants)

I don't care if your evidence is miscut. Whatever. In fact, I will give .0005 speaker points for every completely miscut card in your case - please have a list ready before the round so that I can do the math quickly.

I will NEVER call for cards. Even if you beg me to. It's bad intervention. If you ask to show me evidence after the round you will lose speaks.

Don't extend card names, I don't flow them anyways.

Progressive Args

Theory

I think most theory is stupid. I don't want to judge a theory debate.

Paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad. I don't want to evaluate either of those shells. But if both sides make it clear that they want to have that type of debate, I won't stop you.

If you run theory against a team that doesn't understand what is going on/are being exclusionary, I won't evaluate it and you will probably lose.

Even if they understand what theory is, all they need to do is interrupt you and say 'theory bad' and I won't evaluate theory in the round. Seriously.

I'll evaluate joke stuff like shoe theory, but not if your opponents don't know what's happening.

I don't know what Reasonability or Competing interpretations means and I don't want to know.

The K

I don't know much about Ks.

But I will vote for a Cap K.

Under certain circumstances, I may be convinced to consult in a certain extraterrestrial.

meh

Tricks

Yes please. Have fun.

MISC

I will try hard not to presume. If I have to presume, I presume to whichever team lost the coin toss.

Flex prep is fine.

No need to do GCX, prepping instead is fine.

I care about first cross, but not about the other 2.

Speaks do not exist.

I literally could not care less whether an impact is quantified or not.

You can be rude in crossfire if you are both being rude. If only one person is being rude, I will deduct .5 speaks for every 30 seconds that you are rude.

I always disclose.

I refuse to adjudicate an evidence challenge. If you try to start one, you will get L0s.

Anyone can talk during any cross.

No TKOs.

Postround as much as you want, but NO THIRD FINAL FOCUS. If you do so, I will give L26s.

If you nod or shake your head vigorously while your partner/opponent is talking, you are losing speaks.

DO NOT laugh at your opponents in the round. I'm serious. Unless they say something really stupid, or you are both messing around/joking. Laughing at something that isn't actually stupid is mean and demeaning. Especially since you are probably saying things that are just as stupid. Speaks are in play.

Maya Karri IVORY None

Darren Kessler Hire 8 rounds None

Julie Kuang Hire 8 rounds

Raaj Kumar EMERALD

Rahul Kumar EMERALD None

Sally Lau Hire 8 rounds None

Joshua Lee PEARL

William Li INDIGO

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 8:59 AM EDT

About me: Stanford CS Student. Debated 4 years of VPF for Delbarton School. Decent first speaker, TOC qualed, cleared at Nats, but nothing super crazy. Treat me like a moderately technical flow judge. I've been away from debate for a while and don't judge very often. I can understand up to 250 wpm but I can't flow that fast. I'm probably not coaching for this topic, so assume I don't know any technical topic terms unless told otherwise. I'll disclose. Email willeli2002@gmail.com with evidence exchange or questions. Honestly, I'm pretty fine with most styles of debate so unless you're Eminem, debate how you'd normally debate and don't shoot yourself in the foot trying to adapt to me.

Round Stuff: (I am much more lenient about these things at the novice and JV levels)

- If something makes logical sense I will evaluate it even if I don't believe in it. I'll try my best to be tabula rasa, but reading cards and links isn't enough if there isn't a logical warrant I can understand.

- Smart analytics >>> poorly explained evidence

- Second rebuttal needs to frontline turns or they are conceded. Also, would be VERY nice if you also frontlined defense on the argument you're going for.

- Summary needs frontline the arguments you go for. Dropped defense is sticky in first summary (can be extended from first rebuttal to first final). If the first summary collapses, the second summary should extend defense.

- As a first speaker, I appreciate a good summary. Collapse, weigh, and extend warrants not just card names. Don't go line by line.

- However, would prefer if you read and extended card names just not as a substitute for warrants

- Please weigh early: tell me a story. Also your weighing needs to make sense and be comparative. Quality of weighing mechanisms >>> quantity of weighing mechanisms. If your weighing sucks, I probably won't evaluate it too much.

- If it's a link debate please don't read impact weighing. Link-ins and prereqs are the most convincing "weighing" mechanisms imo. If you control your opponent's link, I'll vote for you even if you don't read impacts.

- Uniqueness controls the direction of the link unless I'm told otherwise.

- If no one weighs, I'll just make my own opinions. Generally, weighed arguments > dropped arguments

- I'll probably average around 28.5-29 in speaks. Being smart and strategic wins your more speaker points than just fluency.

- There's like a 40% chance I'll time any given speech. I would say don't go over time, but honestly I did it all the time as a debater. Don't go more than 10 seconds over, but if you can get away with it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

- Add me to the email chain, but I won't look at any evidence unless I'm told to call it. Also explain your indites; not just: "their evidence is trash!"

- Easiest way to win my ballot is to win your argument cleanly and weigh it well. I don't like to think, and I'm not that smart. Go easy on my potato brain.

- Humor is appreciated just make sure you're actually funny :P. Definitely don't be rude and stuff.

- High school debate tournaments were pretty stressful for me. There's a lot more to the experience than wins and losses. I'm an imperfect judge who will make imperfect decisions. Don't let round results influence your feelings of self worth. Have fun!

Theory and Ks: Default to not running these. I'll try my best to evaluate theory if something egregious happens, but I'm not super experienced with progressive debate, so run at your own risk. Not super sure what a K is. I'll probably default to not believing paraphrase/disclosure theory unless there is a very good reason.

My PF paradigm is similar to my partner's linked below. He goes into more detail about some of my other preferences (how to boost your speaks, etc.)

https://tinyurl.com/connorteehan

Marie Lowry PINK

Brandon Lu PINK

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:35 PM EDT

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

Mira Mehta NAVY

Tage Mehta COPPER None

Jesse Meyer Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:18 AM CDT

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

atkia nazifa Hire 8 rounds

Olivia Northcutt-Wyly YELLOW

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 8:51 AM PDT

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

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

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

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

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

Josephine O'Brien NAVY

Last changed on Fri November 19, 2021 at 3:29 PM EDT

Add me to the email chain: josephineobrien922@gmail.com

Note for Glenbrooks

Hi LDers! I will be judging you. That being said, I have only ever debated in PF and I am a PF judge. That means that I cannot judge advanced theory or spreading. If you don't read my paradigm and run a progressive argument and leave me sitting there attempting to flow and wondering what the heck is going on, that's on you! That being said, I've always loved LD and I'm excited to judge y'all. Most everything else in my paradigm still applies to you, so read through it.

Background:

Hi! I'm Josephine (she/her/hers). I debated for four years for Hunter and graduated in 2021 — I'm taking a gap year before I start college at Columbia University with a dual BA at Sciences Po. I was my team's captain as a senior and, although I took a step back from debating due to virtual tournaments/college apps, I'm familiar with current circuit norms and argumentation. You can treat me as a flow judge, but that doesn't mean that you should tell me to "just extend" an argument or spread.

tldr:

You can win my ballot with the two Ws: Warranting and Weighing. Be nice.

General Guidance:

Please signpost and weigh. I'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. If you want my ballot, weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more!
I'm okay with moderate speed. If I can’t make out what you are saying I’ll say “clear” twice.
I am tech over truth, but if you are racist/sexist/etc i will drop you with low speaks. That also means that you NEED to use content warnings if you're discussing a sensitive topic. And, this should go without saying, but respect pronouns.
Speaks start at a 28 and go up/down from there.
Please, please, please warrant — tell me WHY what you're saying is true, even if so-and-so from the Brooking Institute says it's true!
Don't be mean in cross — that doesn't make it a fun round for anyone.
PF: Write my ballot for me in the final focus! everything in FF should be in summary. All offense for me to vote needs to be in the second half of the round.
You need to extend a clear link chain with warrants and impacts if you want me to vote on it. You would be surprised how many teams neglect to do this.
If you want me to vote on a turn, it needs to be given the same care and attention as case offense. What that means: your links need to be extended, you need a clear and warranted impact, and you need to weigh that impact. I will not vote on a turn that is nebulous or not implicated. That being said, I have nothing against voting off a turn (I personally loved running turns) — just run it well.
I will raise my hand once you're at time and stop flowing after a ~5 second buffer
I love cool and innovative strategies — run them in front of me!
I’m fine with theory if it checks back for actual abuse BUT I am not too familiar with progressive arguments (I personally never ran them). Therefore, if you’re trying something progressive, run it in paragraph form, don’t spread, and explain it clearly.
LD: if neither side has offense at the end of the round i will presume neg, but please don't make me presume anything (please extend!). PF: I'll presume first-speaking team.
Wear whatever makes you comfy.
Try to make me laugh! I show all my emotions on my face so you will know if you say something funny.

Zoë Kaufmann legit taught me everything I know about debate so if you want to learn more about my philosophy, you can check out her paradigm here. You can assume that anything in it also goes for me.

Have fun! innocent And if you ever want to chat about debate or life, feel free to reach out via email, Facebook Messenger, or Instagram (@j0sephinefrancis). I know as well as anyone that debate can be stressful and scary but I am here for you and so proud of all of you! Instead of spending your last few minutes before your round stress-prepping, watch this!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwcJsBYL3o

Josephine O'Connor-Miller Hire 8 rounds None

Denizcan Ozdemir PERIWINKLE None

Manvitha Pabbathi AMBER

Last changed on Sun October 18, 2020 at 4:05 PM PDT

my go-to debate strategy is to use oLfAcToRy aNd gUsTaToRy pErSuAsIoN

yes yes yes i would LOVE to be on the email chain: mpabbathi.22@presentationhs.org

note for nycudl: if you don't understand something in my paradigm, it probably won't matter in your round or just ask me beforehand

tl;dr: tech > truth; i don't need to be there for the coin flip; anything is fine as long as you're clear and you warrant and weigh it well (except tricks. just don't. ew.)

If Naina Panjwani is judging you and her paradigm sends you here, say "basic economics" in your round and I will put in a good word for you.

om divan if you're reading this, i hope you know you're a god and your summaries are FIRE.

i am a high school debater with experience in pf and policy and would consider myself a flow judge and tech > truth.

if there are two things i'm good at, it's the elections da and climate change impacts

pre-round

- pf: do the coin flip before if you are flight 2 or if i haven't shown up yet

- pleaseeeeee pre-flow before!! if you weren't able to for some reason, that's totally fine but try to finish as quickly as possible

- lmk if you need anything to help make the round more accessible e.g. not reading cards on prep time

in-round

- speed is cool as long as you enunciate - send a speech doc if you plan to spread

- defense is not sticky - extend defense throughout your speeches pls i suck at flowing

- be nice in cross although i don't vote off it. if you want me to vote off something you say, put it in your next speech

- pf: 2nd rebuttal should at least frontline turns

- signpost and give roadmaps

- trick or treat? don't run tricks but a treat is always appreciated :) (yes i make bad jokes. i've heard.)

- i am physically allergic to rvis - i will cough/sneeze, give you a side eye, and drop your speaks

- i will vote off any type of argument as long as you implicate it and WEIGHHHHHH (that being said, don't run frivolous theory. it is literally a waste of everyone's time)

note: in policy, i generally think disclosure is good bc the 1nc depends on the aff. in pf, disclosure is kinda split for me so do what you want with that. see below for my thoughts on paraphrasing theory. i'm not super familiar with k debate but i know enough that you could run a basic one. if you want to run a cp in pf i'm open to the idea. aff could totally run a shell against the cp and that would become a pretty cool debate. if it goes well i might give 30 speaks idk. don't run t in pf it literally doesn't make any sense since the aff doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have a plan separate from the res. but if the topic is like the ubi one (feb 2020) then i'll allow it to some extent.

- pf: don't read off against a team that clearly doesn't understand how off-case positions work. that doesn't pass the vibe check

- i default to net benefits/util and probability >magnitude > timeframe if neither team weighs properly

- i'm very open to a good framing debate and will prob give you 30 speaks if it's interesting

- please for the love of all things important in life, please weigh

speaks

- anything that is homophobic, racist, classist, etc. will be immediately dropped, you will get 0 speaks and an auto-loss

- if you impact to extinction and weigh it well, i will bump your speaks by +0.5

- if you have a handwritten note from Naina Panjwani, i will give you a 30 unless you're lowkey toxic in-round

- +0.5 for a quality office or friends reference (the tv show, not an actual office smh)

- auto 30 if you spin 360 degrees each time you say "turn" (yes i stole this from allen abbott)

- if you give me a good song rec before round, i'll bump your speaks by +0.3

evidence

- pf: if you tell me to call for a card + it's a rly big deal in the round, i will call for it

- i would prefer if you didn't paraphrase, however i understand that doing so makes its more accessible to some people. lmk if this is the case. otherwise i have a pretty low threshold for paraphrasing theory.

post-round

- i will disclose and give an rfd if i can

- questions about decisions are fine but please don't get into a 2nd debate with me. it's lowkey funny and pretty entertaining, but i'm prob exhausted at that point and don't want to argue with you. if you really need to rant, i give you full permission to email all complaints to npanjwani.22@presentationhs.org

go to Naina Panjwani's paradigm for more info or ask me if i forget something. you can also message me on facebook or just email me at mpabbathi.22@presentationhs.org (facebook is probably better)

to put it in the words of the wise lay judges, have fun :)

Naina Panjwani EMERALD

Last changed on Sun April 28, 2024 at 1:55 AM CDT

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) 2024-Present - Interim Head Coach
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow, so you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. Crossfire activity/decorum/momentum is my most common ballot tiebreaker. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically go: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third. These do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this is format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the bench. Generally speaking, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is great because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolutionmore than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals born last century have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. The subjectivity of this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. My recognition and criticism of this factor ought to secure I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally values novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives on this debate manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't actually able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 04/28/2024

Anna Marie Payne Hire 8 rounds

Thiviyan Satheesh RUBY

Last changed on Sun January 9, 2022 at 8:55 AM EDT

Hey y'all! I was a PF debater for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School for 4 years, and am a first-year at Northeastern University studying neuroscience.

I was a flow debater, but do not understand any theory, K's, or extreme tech debate. I am ~alright~ with spreading but give a speech doc. I also have not done any debate activities for the last year, so take that as you will. If I cannot flow, your chances of getting down any arguments and winning them severely decreases.

I consider the debate in this order: Weighing, Link, then Impact. If you win the weighing, that's the framework in which I view the round. I then look to who wins the link in that context and ultimately whether or not you access your impact based on any remaining responses and whether they were frontlined effectively.

EXTEND. If you do not extend your entire case, it makes it EXTREMELY difficult to vote, and if both teams don't do that then it will become a very problematic decision because I will have to intervene, and no one wants that.

Make sure to signpost, it makes my flowing easier and will take less time to understand your responses.

If you are speaking first, I consider your defense sticky if not responded to. Otherwise, if responded to, please extend and also explain why your defense/offense is comparatively better than the opponent's response. If you want new implications of defense made, even if your defense has not been responded to, do it here. I will still extend it even if made in FF, it is just always better to have these implications mentioned earlier in a round and consistently extended, otherwise, it may be too late once considering weighing of implications, etc.

If speaking second, no new responses should be in 2nd summary or onwards. New implications of the ~same~ weighing are ok in the 2nd summary given the development of the round, but no outright new weighing mechanisms are allowed. All of the responses should be done in 2nd rebuttal. I prefer front lining in 2nd rebuttal, it makes the debate much cleaner for me to flow and reduces the stress of the first speaker, and also uses 2nd speaking team to its advantage.

I will not call for cards unless I am told to. Make sure your evidence is easy to access or speaks will be dropped a bit. For online tournaments, make an email chain.

Finally, no "isms" or you will be dropped, and speaks will be tanked. Debate must be an activity that is inclusionary for all and must be maintained with a high level of dignity and respect.

Alexander Saul SAPPHIRE

Samah Sharmin RED

Dan Viderman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 6:42 AM EDT

freshman @ the University of Michigan studying math of finance on a premed track currently competing policy/pf for umich debate

6 yrs in debate, 3 on vpf natl circuit competing for Brooklyn Technical HS (if you know what this is and you say bronx sucks I add speaks)

add me to the email chain (danvi@umich.edu)

General:

i hear an argument, i write it down on my flow.

don't spread

speaks start at 28 and if you say something offensive it goes down but if you impress me it goes up

low point wins may happen in round

i don't flow cross but if you flow it then i flow it

don't run k's, theory, or shells bc ill have a hard time following but if they are run i'll still vote tech > truth

1/2 ac:

do not run theory! I said it before and I'll say it again PF is PF and as a policy debater who did PF people do not want to debate policy in PF. I'll flow but beware I'll look upon it negatively.

rest is self explanatory I said it above

general cx:

make me laugh because that's what makes debate fun but do not be rude

cx is a time to argue, so do it. bonus speaks if you (respectfully) call out and say "judge...this is wrong" obviously within reason

do NOT use cx as a continuation of your speeches and if you drop a new contention I drop your speaks

rebuttal:

cleanly flow because it makes everyone's life easier, don't go all over the place because then my flow is all over the place and it's harder for you to win the round

if you're 2nd rebuttal frontline first and don't go line by line - try to save the best for last

summary:

COLLAPSE

it's OKAY to concede an argument. we can't win everything all the time so emphasize which points you HAVE won to make the debate easier for me to judge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the cleaner the flow the easier it is for you to win

do not repeat your speech in summary, and make sure to weigh

ff:

just regurgitate the biggest points + weigh; you have two minutes, so make the most of it

good luck and have fun! if you say Ohio State sucks and Go Blue you get 28.2+ speaks guaranteed(unless of course you break one of the rules above)

Jazmyn Wang Hire 8 rounds

Izabella Widulski PURPLE

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

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

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

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

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

Flowing

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

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

Speed

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

Types of Arguments

I generally prefer well-warranted impacts.

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

Dates

I prefer you read the year for your cards.

Evidence

Evidence is not everything but I find it important.

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

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

Summary and Final Focus

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

No new arguments in Final Focus.

Decorum

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

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

Prep

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

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Mackenzie Wilson SAPPHIRE

Login to Tabroom

NYCUDL Summer Institute Tournament

2020 — New York City, NY/US

PF Paradigm List

Judges