2020 — Online, KY/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Coppell '21 | UT Dallas '25 | He/Him
Conflicts: Coppell (Former Debater: 2018-2021), Quarry Lane (Assistant Coach: 2021-)
- Debate should be an educational and safe space - No violence of any kind towards anyone in the round will be tolerated and the round will be stopped if deemed unsafe for an individual in it.
- I'll try my best to adapt to you - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
- Send speech docs (for constructive speeches at the minimum) to minimize wasting time and make sure I flow everything you read. Anything over 250ish wpm requires a speech doc.
- Cameras on at all times.
- Establish a method of evidence sharing before the round starts.
- If you get called out for stealing prep and you clearly are, speaks will be low. To avoid this - stay unmuted when a team is sending evidence over.
Public Forum Basics
- I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
- Extend the arguments themselves - the names of each author aren't required
- To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
- Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count, and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives either
- Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense it's conceded, and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
- Link turns need uniqueness responses to make them into a link turn and access the impact of the contention, otherwise it's just another contention with no impact
- Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter
- Dumping DA's in second rebuttal is can be made into a voting issue, but I don't have a predisposition on this issue
PF Summary/Final Focus
- Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - sticky defense doesn't exist
- Extend and weigh any argument you go for
- Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
- Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
- The more genuine the reason for reading the argument, the higher the likelihood you win - read theory at your own discretion
- Misgendering or Content Warning based arguments are highest in the hierarchy of theory arguments here - if there's clear abuse then I encourage you to read these arguments
- Arguments about evidence ethics (paraphrasing, disclosure) or in-round unfairness (miscutting evidence, dumping DA's) are fine - check evidence section below for more info
- Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me (with an exception to disclosure) - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
- Defaults include CI > Reasonability, DTD, RVIs bad
- Frivolous theory is just uneducational and dumb
Other Progressive Arguments
- Any argument, as long as it is warranted and impacted out is fair game - limit jargon on uncommon arguments or kritik's
- Layer arguments for me - there isn't a set in stone way to evaluate multiple types of progressive arguments in a round and they are up for interpretation here
- Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
- If you take more than 2 minutes to find a piece of evidence, speaks will be low.
- Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss
- I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
- If a team can win by reading cut cards only, you're guaranteed a 29 minimum
- Will be consistent with what the average judge gives at a tournament hopefully - nothing below a 27.5 unless warranted through in-round abuse
- +0.1 if you disclose on the NDCA PF Wiki, +0.1 if you read cut cards in case
- I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
- Post-round, but I won't change my decision - this should be a means to learn what you could've improved on instead of trying to get me to change my ballot, which isn't possible
Novices (Any Event)
- Collapse. Most rounds are lost by going for too much and not explaining the most important arguments enough. Choose only a few (one is fine of course) arguments to have in your last speech and explain it/do impact calculus and compare it to your opponent’s argument.
- Clarity. Go at a pace you feel comfortable at, there isn’t always a need to match your opponent’s speed and make sure that speed doesn’t sacrifice the clarity of your arguments. This also relates to the order of your speeches: Be clear when responding to different arguments and label them as such (i.e. “Moving on to their argument about Military Spending”). This makes it much easier to follow along and catch everything.
- Comparison. A bit repetitive but important to understand: comparing (doing impact calculus) is the most important way to win a round. Usually both teams are winning some argument on their side, and the way to ensure your argument comes above theirs is to give reason as to why it does.
- Critical Thinking. This is good for speaker points and even winning the round. You won’t have responses to every argument and so using outside knowledge or analytical arguments that rely on logic are more likely to be stronger in rounds. Don’t be afraid to use what you know.
- Other than this - I’m open to any arguments being read as long as you explain them and follow some of the suggestions I’ve outlined. I understand that being new to the event can be difficult at first so I want to make sure you are getting as much out of the round as possible. If you have any questions about an argument, my decision, or the event in general, feel free to ask me after the round or shoot me an email. Good luck!
Tarun Ratnasabapathy's Pre-Kindergarten Academy '22
The way I make my decision is complex. I keep a very light flow, then I take the number count, multiply it by 2, divide it by 3, add 17, subtract the number of speaker points I gave each of you, flip a coin six times, take the results and add the number of tails from the original number then divide by the number of heads, ask Alexa to pick a very specific number (420), subtract it from the total, and then vote aff/prop.
If you roast Pranav Kaginele I will be very happy and amused and reward you with a very prestigious 25 speaker points.
Also this^ is my very very very legit paradigm. The one below this is definitely not my real one.
Southlake Carroll '22 // she/her
email@example.com (put me on the chain please) || Messenger: Neha Boyapati ( < feel free to ask me any questions you might still have)
Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 4 years, 3 in PF and 1 in worlds. I qualified for TFA state in PF my freshman and sophomore years and for Worlds in my junior year. I broke at a few bid tournaments in PF. In worlds, I'm the 1/4 for Southlake Saffron and the TFA state 2021 champion. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Pranav Kaginele, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala. I'm also a fan of tarun (southlake carroll TR)
My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My role as a judge is to evaluate arguments based on how you present them in the round without bringing in external biases. That means I'm tech > truth and all dropped arguments are true. I will vote for unwarranted arguments and arguments that aren't true if they're dropped (this may not apply for WSD - see my worlds paradigm) -- it's your burden to call out these arguments
The ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.
I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one
Substance: I'll never not be happy to judge a pure substance round. The flow is important - extending through ink is 100% not a thing. Second summary gets way too much leniency, no new frontlines to responses from first rebuttals and new terminal defense in this speech. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Defense that isn't frontlined in second rebuttal is sticky in first summary. No new arguments (including weighing) can be in final focus. I couldn’t care less about cross
Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF. The only non-negotiables I have here are that I won’t vote on ad homs or arguments about things that happened outside of the round (except disclosure), speech times are set, "bUt tHiS iS pF" isn't a response, and I will evaluate the debate after the second final focus (unless you're tryna concede, not debate, and settle the round with a game in which I feel you). That aside, I can evaluate pretty much anything. I default drop the debater, competing interps, and no RVIs on theory. Overexplain high theory and non-T/performance Ks. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW is annoying. Perfcons are incredibly persuasive. I don't like tricks but I won’t intervene on the flow - just on your speaks. I default comparative worlds, permissibility negates, flip a coin for presumption
Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.
What do I want to see in each speech? The one is pretty self-explanatory, I expect the opp 1 to start some refutation to the prop. I don't expect the 2 to have voters but if you give me a 2 that does a very good job of refuting your opponents points/frontlining your own and you also do it by grouping arguments into voters, I will be impressed and probably give you higher speaks over a straight line by line 2. The 3 absolutely should not be straight line by line. Same with the 4. However, I'm inclined to give you a little leeway bc I personally enjoy line by line debate better, but it is worlds so I'll have to dock you points
What kind of arguments do I buy/How do I assign points? Any argument really. My tech over truth philosophy applies here, argue whatever you want no matter how ridiculous it sounds on face. If you win it on the flow then you win it. That said, I won't by assertions that are blatantly wrong like saying the sky is red - notice the difference between assertion and argument. If you say something wrong but argue it with reasons/warrants and you win them then I'll give you the argument, if you just assert something wrong I won't buy it. I think practical arguments are kind of dumb because 95% of the time the principle outweighs, but I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument). If you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh, if I'm given no weighing then I default practical > principal
To be honest, I don't really vibe with the points system. I'll probably just judge how I judge PF (giving the win to whoever wins on the flow). Style does not factor into my decision, only for speaks. I don't like judging off style because I believe 1) it's too subjective and 2) it becomes so easy to fall prey to implicit biases. If your strategy and your content points are good, your style points will be good too. Good rhetoric/humor and style may be more persuasive and make me like you, but if your strategy relies on pretty speaking and rhetoric, you will never get my ballot over a team with better argumentation. If this is a problem strike me
Speaks: I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(
Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means
Strake Jesuit '23
bold stuff is rly all u gotta know
I am primarily tech > truth.
*I say primarily because I won't listen to argument that are blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic etc. Additionally, if an argument is just blatantly not true or is not something you expect me to understand after hearing it the first time (such as tricks or an absurdly weird impact/link scenario), I will have a higher threshold for extending/explaining and frontlining the argument.
I won't call for evidence unless someone tells me too or it's heavily disputed and there is no good in round comparison.
I presume status quo or first speaking team if the topic is a policy action or benefits o/w harms until there is a presumption argument. My threshold for a presumption argument is fairly low, but it still needs an actual warrant and needs to be read before 2nd final focus.
If you want to win, comparatively weigh on both the link and impact level. Don't just spam buzzwords, give analysis and compare it to your opponents arguments. If you don't, I'll just vote for the more compelling link or the, if it's obvious, larger impact.
I believe probability weighing exists and is a good method of weighing. However, proving one part of your link is probable doesn't mean the entire argument is. Additionally, don't use probability weighing as an excuse to read new defense. Lastly, if you win your link you get access to the level of probability presented in your case.
If you're reading a link-in in summary and it's elaborate, I'll have a low threshold for in-depth responses. That being said, you can still win it and if it's in rebuttal i'll view it like any other argument. Also compare your link-ins to your opponents link. Usually other weighing mechanisms do that for you but I like when it's explicit.
Meta weighing is good. If I get a bunch of weighing mechanisms from both sides but no comparative I will probably have to intervene to an extent.
Warranting your arguments is really important as well. I won't vote on an argument that isn't warranted or doesn't have a warrant extended through Summary and FF. If your opponent makes the claim that your argument has no warrant and I agree then it functions as terminal defense.
If you are going to kick out of a turn you have to do it in the speech after the turn and Delink/NU is read, otherwise the turn is conceded. However, if your opponents extend Both a Delink/NU and a turn, you can kick out of the turn in the speech after they are both extended. If you want to go for an impact turn please remember to at least briefly extend their link, and if you are going for a link turn, their impact.
I'm ok w/ y'all delinking your own arguments. It can be strategic in certain situations but it isn't always the best look and your speaks might take a minor hit. Additionally, my threshold for responding to the delink/making arguments as to why you shouldn't be able to delink your own arguments its fairly low.
I won't listen to it attentively but cross is binding.
Speed is fine. If you are going to go above 300 wpm then send a speech doc or I will just start docking speaks. Also, if I can't flow your argument, I can't evaluate it.
Speech specific stuff:
Do what you want but reading a lot of disads in 2nd rebuttal might hurt your speaks if it's against people who are clearly struggling w/ it or I think its abusive.
I suggest you frontline in 2nd rebuttal. However, the only thing you need to frontline is offense from the first rebuttal. It would be much much much better if you get through everything tho.
Carded weighing/framing is cool but I would suggest reading it in case. Latest speech for carded weighing is first summary.
Whether you collapse or not in this speech is up to you.
Weigh turns against your opponents case in rebuttal otherwise you're going to have to invest a lot of time into explaining what the turn is and why the turn matters in summary.
Pls extend your arguments, and extend well. You can extend by author names or by just explaining you argument but it needs to have UQ -> L -> IL -> !
You can extend while frontlining (I suggest this b/c it is more efficient), extend before frontlining, or extend after fronting. I don't care just as long as you do extend and frontline.
My threshold for extending conceded arguments is lower than for contested ones. Keep in mind this isn't an excuse for a bad/no link extension.
Please collapse in this speech. This applies to turns as well.
Defense is sticky until frontlined, so if it is frontlined in second rebuttal then defense isn't sticky in summary, if it isn't responded to in rebuttal then you don't need to extend it in summary, but its cool if u extend defense in case u wanna implicate it more or smthn.
Please weigh, when digging through the arguments I will look to the one with the best weighing first.
Final Focus -
Everything piece of offense you are going for in this speech should have been in summary.
My threshold for new weighing in FF is much higher than it is for other speeches, and if you are second, I'll only flow your responses to weighing if your opponents started in first final.
Defense isn't sticky in FF.
Same thing about extending in summary applies here as well. Extensions can probably be more lazy if there is clearly less/no ink on the argument you're extending. Lazy does not mean incomplete.
There is a line between being mean and being funny, don't cross it. If you are funny your speaks increase, if you are mean they do the opposite.
I start at 28.5 and speaks will go up for in round decisions/strategy. It really shouldn't be hard to get above a 29. However, some tournaments have .5 intervals and don't allow ties, in which case this will probably be different. I'll err on the side of higher speaks.
Speaks are given based on competitiveness of the pool.
If you win fairly convincingly while going substantially slower than your opponents or frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal, I will probably give you 29.5-30.
Speaking style isn't rly that important but still try and be somewhat persuasive b/c that is partially what PF is about. I'll reward more persuasive speakers with higher speaks but not necessarily vice versa.
Ask questions before the round if you have any about my paradigm.
I'll evaluate progressive stuff normally and have a decent amount of experience with such arguments, although I don't always love them. Theory is ok if there is an actual abuse, but I see no reason why it can't be in paragraph form or has to be spread. If you are going to read a K - 1. I might not understand it which will make it harder to vote for 2. Make sure your opponents understand what is going on or that you have written the K in a way in which someone just beginning the debate can understand.
I default yes RVIs and CI > Reasonability btw.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Feel free to post round me/ask questions but try not to make it insanely excessive or make other judges and/or competitors uncomfortable. If a tournament is running late or I need to get going then just Facebook messenger me w/ questions.
I will give an oral RFD and maybe disclose speaks (if someone asks and both teams are ok with it).
content warnings for self-harm are necessary to me
email@example.com for the email chain
hi im neel (any pronouns ig but most people use he/him)
i did pf and ld throughout hs at plano east.
- do anything just do it well (as long as its not violent)
- being a good person >>> tech > truth
- respect pronouns
- dont be mean or make obviously reprehensible arguments (no death good, racism good, etc)
- i have biases that can easily be overcome by good debating (obv lol)
- put me on a song u like (if i know it, +0, if i like it i'll up speaks by up to .3, and if i dislike it i'll cut speaks by up to .3)
- my paradigm is just a collection of random thoughts i have about debate. try not to be scared of my lack of experience - my lack of experience does NOT dictate my willingness to listen to and evaluate the arguments you make in the debate.
- i ran policy arguments for like 95% of my career. i'd pref me higher for policy arguments than everything else.
- i'm probably a very good judge to try new strats on because i don't have any major ideological bias against arguments. in fact, i was exposed to more "progressive" arguments for such a small amount of time that i never really developed any opinions on them. i just ask that you explain your arguments very thoroughly, and direct my ballot well.
- to be clear, i have a decent understanding of theory and t. i'm somewhat familiar with most common ks. i have basically no experience with phil, pomo k, tricks, and performance debates.
- show me that you are strategic. i get that my paradigm might sound very "larp or i play tetris and tune you out"-y but i assure you thats not the case. i would much much much rather you go for a conceded argument/an argument you understand better than some bad counterplan that has tons of ink on it just bc i have more experience w policy args.
- one thing i can comfortably say i'm not a huge fan of is huge huge overviews with next to no application to specific issues on the flow. to be clear, you can read your big overview, as long as you explain to me what each argument in the overview is meant to answer. along the same lines, "x author answers this" isn't a response. "x author answers this - insert explanation of how exactly the author answers a particular argument" is a response.
i did this event for the majority of my debate career so im p familiar with it. i'm a technical judge who can evaluate any non-violent argument you want me to if you present it in an accessible way. if you like having cale mcrary or sam loh in the back, u should pref me. i'm open to theoretical arguments, especially ones related to disclosure and paraphrasing.
- i am so sorry lol
- just read your a-strat and try not to go top speed. i'll definitely need a lot more ballot instruction in the back half than the average judge.
you can do whatever