Tabroom.com

Plano West TFATOC Qualifier

2020 — Plano West, US

PFD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Umar Abdul-Qadir Hire 5 rounds

Lillian Albrecht Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 10:37 AM CDT

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

For TFA 2024: please add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com to the chain and make sure your documents are able to be viewed after the round (ideally a PDF or Word document). Please arrive to rounds early and be preflowed, especially for flight 2.

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

Raheena Ali Hire 5 rounds

Nihar Annam Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 25, 2020 at 8:17 AM EDT

did PF '18-'20 at Plano West ('16-'18 at Jasper but we won't talk about that)

general stuff:

uncarded warrants > unwarranted cards.

im super super warrant heavy - just reading 20 card tags and calling it rebuttal isn't a strategy. Going for truth is not as incompatible with the tech as you'd like to think.

The first time you warrant an argument, I will take that as your warrant. This doesn't mean that I will vote for an argument with poor warrant extension, but if the first time you provide/explain the warrant is not in the first speech you read the argument, I will not consider the argument.

if you read anything racist/ableist/sexist/etc. its an L20

im fine with speed - if you're unclear i'll ask you to slow down; if you're clear but I can't flow i'll just call for a speech doc. The faster you go, the more important it is to signpost. Please don't spread out novices.

evidence ethics are super important - please use cut cards in case. I'd rather you read an uncarded warrant than misconstrue evidence to fit your warrant. theres a good chance I drop you if an important card is misconstrued.

that being said, I don't super care about evidence. I will care if you misconstrue, but if a team reads a actual logical response to a carded arg and its never responded to (or poorly responded to) I'll p much always buy the logical response.

I don't really care about cross - if something important happens, mention it in a speech. That said, I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk in cross.

I'm going to be really reluctant to vote on new weighing in ff, please start it earlier.

First summary does not need to extend defense that isn’t frontlined in the first rebuttal. Defense is sticky.

Extensions need to have a clear citation, and short crystallization of the warrant AND impact before I can vote on it. I'll give you marginal offense with a poorly extended impact, but no offense from a poorly extended warrant.

The second rebuttal has to respond to all of 1st rebuttal or it's considered dropped.

no das in rebuttal

I vote prob > mag unless given a reason not to

other stuff:

im fine with theory and well explained, limited jargon Ks. no tricks or topicality tho.

if you read progressive stuff on a clearly novice team, I'll either tank your speaks or just down you.

I would strongly prefer if carded framing (like GPP extinction framing or whatever) was in case - it makes for actual fw debate.

I believe very strongly in durable fiat. I'm not going to intervene on args, but my threshold for work needed to win a durable fiat arg is very low.

If you want to debate plans/cps for whatever reason, I'm fine with it on the conditions of: a) both sides agree before the round and b) the other side gets their plan/cp too.

I also agree with everything from these people's paradigms:

Chris Sheerer

Matt Feng

Daniel Liang

There might be stuff I missed: just ask me before round

Ishan Balakrishnan Hire 5 rounds

Reva Balakrishnan Gunn Sr High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 21, 2023 at 12:30 PM PDT

Hi! I debated PF for Henry M. Gunn High School for 3 years (Gunn BZ/BB). I am a junior at Northwestern University and I coach for Henry M. Gunn High School.

Generally:

- offense should be in summary and ff

- defense is not necessary in first summary

- you don't have to frontline in second rebuttal (but pls do it)

- you can go fast just don't spread

- if you are going to go fast and the other team wants a speech doc you have to send it before your speech otherwise slow down (if you send it after the other team has to use prep to basically flow ur speech that is not fair)

- i didn't debate theory or k's but if you explain it to me i will vote off of it (pls do not run progressive args on kids that don't know what that is)

- theory: my threshold to evaluate progressive args unless its directed at specific abuse that occurred in the round is really high (don't run it just for an easy win)

- pls weigh (as early as possible)

- if you want me to look at a card tell me to

- i will always presume neg unless you tell me otherwise

- if there's an email chain add me: revareva@gmail.com

-----

Important:

- if you say something problematic and continue to do so I will drop you and give you 25 speaks

- you can call a TKO in round and if it's correct I'll give you a win and 30s, if you're wrong tho you'll get a loss and 25s

-----

Trigger Warnings:

- if you are talking about sensitive issues plz read a trigger warning

- i don't think just reading a trigger warning and then starting to speak does anything to protect someone who may be impacted by what you are going to say

- in my opinion what you should do is say your trigger warning and then give everyone your phone number or do something to allow everyone to say yes or no

- this is the only way that people can protect themselves and also not have to publicly explain their emotions or why they are sensitive

- if they say no have another case or a contention you can swap in prepared

Feel free to message me if you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or after the round if you want me to further explain my decision or give advice! You can email me or hit me up on FB!

Payton Bellman Hire 5 rounds

Robin Brinkmann Hire 5 rounds

Bennett Brown Oxford HS 2 rounds

Jena Brown Clear Springs High School 2 rounds None

Robert Brown Bellaire 5 rounds

Priya Chander Jasper HS 5 rounds None

Wade Chien Montgomery Blair 4 rounds

Maddie Cook Lakeville 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 2:38 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Elizabeth Creamer Westwood 5 rounds None

Ronald Cupich William P. Clements High School 1 rounds

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Shivani Desai William P. Clements High School 1 rounds

Hanh Do Hebron High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 3:31 PM CDT

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

Zach Dyar St Paul Academy and Summit School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 2:25 PM CDT

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com .Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

Glenda Ferguson Coppell High School 4 rounds

Max Fuller Vista Ridge High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 6, 2020 at 4:54 AM CDT

Background:

I did Public Forum for 3 years at Vista Ridge High School, and a few Policy tournaments but I doubt it really counts. I debated on the national and local circuit, qualifying for TFA State my Junior and Senior years of High School. I am currently a Sophomore at St. Edward's University in Austin.

General:

I am not tolerant of any sexism, racism, or anything of derogatory nature and my ballot will reflect that.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. AND SIGNPOST. I am more tabula rasa than not.

Also, keep track of prep yourself I am too lazy to do it.

I generally listen to cross-fire but I don't decide the round on it.

Please be kind to one another and do not talk over each other. Debate is a game of intellect, not to shout over each other as if you were in a bar fight. (this will also get your speaks docked)

If you have a good joke that is tasteful and in context, go for it.

Speed:

I think that you can go at a fast pace as long as I can understand you, and I will just say clear if I can't but this does not mean spreading. Please do not spread, there's no point and it does not make you win more round in the long run. All in all, just be clear. I am not a judge that overestimates their ability to comprehend speed, I would rather everyone be in understanding of what is happening rather than going at warp speed.

LD - If you flash me everything you read, you go as fast as you want. If there are off-screen analytics being made I would slow down a bit.

Types of Arguments:

Keep in mind I did PF, not LD or CX. Run theory at your own risk. I did PF when they were running disclosure, I will listen to it but your voters or RVI's have to be pretty compelling for me to give you a round win, but it can be done. Other theory arguments like T's or K's are usually not done correctly and just make things messy. Also, running these arguments because the opponent doesn't know what theory is, is exclusionary and not cool.

I also do not like weird squirrely arguments to throw the opponents off, it just isn't needed but if its clever and in your constructive than more power to you.

The Split:

I think the second rebuttal should always frontline/address the first rebuttal. That is all.

Summary:

Defense is NOT sticky.

Given that you have a 3-minute summary, there better be some good condensing in there.

If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. I also like it when teams collapse well in these speeches. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus.

Evidence:

Truthful paraphrasing > miscut cards.

I can't believe I have to say this, but please represent evidence honestly. I'm not going to punish you for paraphrasing but I do expect you to stay true to what the evidence is saying if you choose to do so. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Please don't do "debater math" or over-extrapolate the results and numbers in studies. It's often unethical and usually just not educational and inaccurate. Wrong. Bad. Pls don't.

You should know where your evidence is. I won't start immediately running your prep when opponents want you to find some evidence because I think that's silly, but if you start taking more than a minute or so I will.

Bracketing in your card is bad. The one exception, I guess, would be clarifying a qual or something. For example, if your card says "Amar continues" and you add "[Yale Law professor Akhil Reed] Amar continues" that isn't a huge deal, but it's probably easier to just note it somewhere else before/after the card.

Card dumps ≠ warrants, pls explain your arguments.

Speaker Points:

If you speak clearly and your in-round strategy is good, don't worry about speaker points. I generally don't give below 28 but it takes a good amount to get a 30.

Hong Gao Winston Churchill High School 2 rounds

Robert Garza Hire 5 rounds

Vietta Grinberg BergenTech HS

Pranay Gundam Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 6, 2020 at 10:47 AM CDT

PF:

Myself:

It's been some time since I've been involved with debate things but I would still like to think I am not a lay judge. I debated for Plano West.

Speech Strategy:

Now that summary is 3 mins I'm inclined to believe that defense should be in every speech whether or not your opponent frontlines in rebuttal if you're going for it.

Offense you want to go for has to be in every speech save rebuttals (although I do like frontlining in 2nd rebuttal).

General Progressive Arguments:

I will evaluate them as normal PF arguments and they should be restructured in such a fashion.

I am pretty neutral to theory, but I think that there are some pretty bad norms in PF and I think theory might help fix them.

Speaks:

I will give speaks based on what I think you deserve, these are most likely going to be on the upper spectrums though. Also bring a printed picture of the TMNT, Viswa Raj, Pranay Gundam, Noah Ogata, MK Rao (+.1 each picture/max of +0.3 per partner)

Evidence:

I don't like waiting (I think evidence should either be on hand or be kicked), so if you take too long to find evidence I'll dock speaks.

I'll call for evidence when:

1) I feel that you are misconstruing it

2) I am told to call for it or it is heavily contested (I have been told there are more strict rules on paraphrasing now).

3) Competing evidence on important offense and I am not presented with a way to prefer one piece of evidence over the other (often times I'll still call for it even if there is evidence weighing).

4) I'm interested

I don’t auto drop debaters on evidence abuse. Small faults, such as minor late speech power tagging, that preserve the integrity of the card can result in no to minor consequences. More severe abuses can lead to me just kicking the card.

Paraphrasing is ok AS LONG AS you're not misrepresenting evidence

Spreading

I am not trained to follow spreading, but I will try my best. I will say clear if you're going to fast. If you are going to spread please email the speech doc to robopokemmon@gmail.com. If you're clear on analytics and tags I'm okay if you spread the card so long as you email me the evidence.

If there is something not on here that you have a question about, don't hesitate to ask before round.

Caroline Hao Hire 5 rounds

Saminul Haque Richardson High School 5 rounds

Chad Hayden Clovis North High School 3 rounds None

Cole Hesterberg Clovis North High School 2 rounds

Robey Holland Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 9, 2019 at 3:55 AM CDT

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Edison Huang Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 4:15 PM EDT

Updated for Septober 2020

small topic knowledge

I debated for Plano West HL. he/him

General:

If you're reading material that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger or content warning (preferably this is done anonymously thru a Google form or smth). If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, you will be dropped.

Tech > truth. If you are not paraphrasing and are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.2 This also applies if you've disclosed on NDCA or CircuitDebater. Good warranting, weighing, and extensions will make me want to vote for you. I care more about how you articulate your warrants than the specifics of your evidence. Exception is if you're misrepresenting. If you are conceding de-links or non-uniques to kick out of turns, they must be made in the speech after the original response was made. Please preflow before the round. Keep track of your own and each others' time, and please don't steal prep. ehuang02 [at] gmail.com for any other questions, or message me on Facebook. I'm sorry if I make a bad decision. I'll try not to. also available for coaching so hmu

Important stuff:

1. Any offense that you want me to evaluate needs to be in summary and final focus and extended properly. Make sure every part of the arg is extended. If you are missing links, warrants, or an impact, I will probably not vote on it. This goes for turns also. If you extend a turn without explicitly implicating what the impact is, I won't vote for it. You also ought to re-extend the link/impact that you are turning if your opponents aren't extending it also. Frontlines are not extensions.

2. With summary being 3 minutes, defense you're going for needs to be in every speech.

3. Second rebuttal must answer turns from first rebuttal. You might want to also frontline defense on an argument that you want to go for, but I won't require it. If you choose to read independent offense, my threshold for extensions on that argument will be higher.

4. The earlier you begin weighing, the more likely it is that I vote for you. Weighing must be comparative and warranted. Consistency in weighing mechanisms that your partner has already introduced is a good idea. I won't evaluate weighing in second FF unless it is the only weighing in the round. Meta weigh as necessary. If I am presented two competing weighing mechanisms without any meta weighing, I will probably intervene on the link level and vote for the team with better warranting.

5. Please don't spread. If you want to go a little fast, it's fine. If I'm unable to understand you, I'll probably set my pen down or clear you. If you are going to spread, please send a speech doc.

6. Organization in a speech is important. Please signpost. Slowing down on author names will also help me out.

7. If something important comes in crossfire, it has to be in a speech for me to evaluate it. Crossfire is binding.

8. Debate how you like, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. I personally prefer a line by line summary. If both teams agree and want me to judge a different way (e.g. a lay judge), I can go for it.

9. I'll try to intervene as little as possible. If defense is read against an argument, implicated, and conceded, I will flow it through even if it's not responsive. However, my threshold for frontlining unresponsive args will be low. If you tell me it isn't responsive, I won't evaluate it. I will intervene on unwarranted arguments. If an argument is introduced without a warrant, and the warrant isn't read until a later speech, I am fairly unlikely to evaluate it. If it's conceded, I'll try not to evaluate it unless it's the only offense in the round. I may also default if there is no clear offense. I will default team that lost the coin flip if you tell me to, but otherwise I'll default first speaking team.

10. If both teams are ok with it, I will disclose speaks/results at the end of the round. If you're in the bubble round (and you tell me), you'll get high speaks.

11. Make sure your evidence says what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it, I will. If your evidence is misrepresented and significant in the round, I may drop you.

Progressive stuff:

1. I'm a bit comfortable with theory. You might want to ask me before the round if I'll be receptive to a certain shell. Extend all parts of the shell the same way you would extend a traditional arg.

2. Please don't run theory on novices.

3. I default no RVI/competing interps.

4. I'm not as comfortable with Ks, CPs or other progressive args. If you want to run these, you can, but you might need to work a little harder explaining it to me.

I enjoyed debating in high school. Try to have fun with it, and if there's anything I can do to help you enjoy it more, let me know. If there are still any questions, please ask me before the round begins. You can feel free to ask me about my decision.

Peter Huang Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 3:44 PM EDT

If you're too lazy to read through all of this, feel free to just skim and ask me questions before round.

Arguments:

The second-speaking team doesn't have to answer first-speaking team in rebuttal. However, if second-speaking team chooses not to, then defense from first-speaking team's rebuttal will not have to be extended in summary for me to evaluate it, but turns from first-speaking rebuttal will still have to be extended.

I try my best to not bring my own knowledge into the round, so I'll evaluate whatever I'm told, given that there's sufficient warranting, even if it's a really wacky argument. But there's probably some subconscious bias deep inside of me that will prefer arguments that are more believable, so keep that in mind. I wish I could be a completely "blank-slate" judge but unfortunately I am still a human who suffers from biases.

I am unfamiliar on how to evaluate progressive stuff (e.g. counterplans, theory) so you will have to make these really clear to me if you want me to consider them. I prefer substance-based clash but am willing to listen to theory if there is a legitimate claim to abuse. This is not an invitation to run theory just because – if I think you are doing so just to win, as opposed to doing so because there's actual abuse going on, then I probably won't vote off of it.

Weighing your arguments is nice because that lessens the chance that I am forced to intervene and do work for either side. Also, be sure to address your opponent's weighing and explain why it's wrong and why your weighing is better. If two teams are giving me two different ways of weighing arguments and neither gives me a justification for why their weighing is "better", then I will have to pick which one I like better, meaning I have to intervene. And if neither team gives me weighing, then I will have to pick which arguments I believe are more important, meaning again that I will have to intervene. I prefer to not intervene because that will increase the likelihood that one of the sides feels judge-screwed, and I want to be as fair as possible.

Evidence:

I am fine with paraphrasing, but will probably hold debaters that use directly-cut cards in higher regard, speaker point and argument-wise.

I will probably call for evidence if I think that it is really good or crucial to your argument and it's a super close round. I usually call for 2-3 pieces of evidence in outrounds and tight prelim rounds. I think that it's a new policy to allow Internet to access PDFs, so I'm cool with that if your opponents are too. If that is true, then I will expect you to be able to procure the original. If you can't, I'll try to consider the argument and how logically sound it is, but that will make the argument much weaker in my eyes.

If I read the evidence and think you are exaggerating it, then I won't necessarily entirely discount it, but I will definitely not consider the argument as much. This means that even if your opponents don't point out your evidence is misconstrued in the round itself, its inaccuracy might still be part of my evaluation. I think that if you are exaggerating, then it shouldn't be the opponents' burden to call that exaggeration out.

This is all especially true for wacky arguments that rely on obscure link chains or for impacts that I think are extremely potent.

Speaking:

I generally give around 27-30 points, with 30s reserved for speakers that I think did exceptionally in the round. I'll take points off for unnecessary rudeness. I place more of an emphasis on arguments over speaking, so you can still get a 30 provided your argumentation is good and clear.

Try to be as clear and concise as possible whenever speaking, because that will make it easier for me to flow. I am also bad at flowing people who spread (and I mean really bad), so do so at your own risk. In cases where the speaking is super great, I might add points. Similarly, I might docks points if the speaking is really cruddy to the point where I am straining to understand the arguments.

Don't be mean!!

Samir Idrees Elkins High School 1 rounds

Arul Iyyavoo Cambrian Academy 2 rounds

Anthony Jiang Hire 5 rounds

Reena John William P. Clements High School 1 rounds

Sohail Jouya Westwood 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM EDT

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Haneya Khan Hire 5 rounds

Yilin Li Hire 5 rounds

Daniel Liang Hire 5 rounds

Jennifer Lin Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 10, 2020 at 10:12 PM EDT

I debated for Plano West and graduated in 2019.

***Please Preflow!***

Email Chains: I don't have anything against email chains, but you should not be speaking so fast that you need to rely on them for people to understand what you're saying. I want to hear your arguments, not read your word document.

Important things to keep in mind:

1. Speed: Speed is fine as long as you are clear and articulate, double-breath spreading is not.

2. Second rebuttal: You need to frontline all turns. You do not need to frontline defense, although it may be strategic for you to do so.

3. Disads: I will only evaluate disads if they are well-warranted and weighed in rebuttal. Along those same lines, turns must be weighed if you are planning to win the round with it.

3. First summary: You do not need to extend defense if 2nd rebuttal dropped it (defense is sticky).

4. Theory and progressive args: I would avoid running these in front of me. I have very little experience with these types of arguments, so I would not trust me to know how to evaluate them properly. If you still feel compelled to run them, I will try my best to make a good decision, but no promises.

5. Warrants: If your argument is not warranted, I will not vote off of it. I will always pick a warranted analytic over an unwarranted empiric.

6. If something is in final focus, it must be in summary.

7. Extensions: An extension includes a link and an impact. If your link and/or impact are not extended into summary and final focus, I will drop the argument.

8. It really annoys me when teams are moving targets (i.e. defense should not suddenly become a turn in summary/ff, you should not all of a sudden manifest a new impact in summary/ff, and your link should not all of a sudden become something different in summary/ff). If this happens, I will get mad and drop the entire argument, so you're better off just sticking with what you originally said.

9. Weighing: Please weigh (and warrant your weighing!) Set up weighing in summary and terminalize your impacts. If you don't weigh, I will be forced to make my own decision, and you might not be happy with it.

10. If you present a new argument in 2nd ff, I will be annoyed and won't evaluate it.

11. Defaulting: I don't think any team should be able to win off of just defense, and there's no reason neg deserves to over aff. So, I will try really hard not to default neg. That being said, sometimes I don't have a choice, but this should never be your strategy.

12. A little bit of sass in crossfire is fine, but please don't be mean, rude, or condescending.

13. Speaks: 27-30. Speaks will be based mostly off of argumentation, but being easy-to-understand is important too.

Feel free to ask me any questions after round!

Most importantly, have fun!

Ranie Lin Hire 5 rounds

Yiji Lin St John's School 4 rounds

Sam Loh Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 20, 2022 at 8:06 PM EDT

*TOC* '22 - Helping some kids out, guess I'm back just for this one tournament

Conflicts: Walt Whitman DP and Marist School

Background: Plano West Class of '18, Was affiliated with Hebron ('18-19), Colleyville Heritage ('19-20), The Marist School ('20-21), Worked with debaters from Plano East ('19-21), Coppell ('19-21), Westlake ('19-20), and Walt Whitman ('20-21)

If you're really that curious about anything else check judging record I guess.

My speaks used to average in the mid 27's if that matters

I don't even know why I have to say this, safety is critical to participation, if you make the round unsafe it's a stop the round L0, trip to tab

Top level notes (I.e. Important Stuff):

-I have not been involved in circuit debate since this tournament last year. I have not thought about arguments, I have not done research, I have not coached. My level of competency for fast, technical debates is undoubtedly lower than it used to be

-Arguments and styles that appeal to a lay audience are both good and useful but do not confuse this with the "truth > tech" nonsense. Full link chains are still required and any argument is founded on a warrant. Conceded arguments are 100% true, I don't care how ridiculous you make them out to be. If you think they're non-sensical the burden's on you.

-Speeches are meant to build on top of one another. The role of the rebuttal is to address offense - this means you should be covering turns/disads/etc. in the 2R. No, "sticky defense" is not a thing. What is in summary should be in final focus and vice versa. No new arguments in the second final focus, that's ridiculous.

-You should be weighing. Weighing should be comparative. Weighing is an argument and therefore should be warranted. Weighing should be introduced as. early. as. possible.

-Your backhalf extensions ought to be extensions of the full argument. UQ -> Link -> I. Link -> Impact. Don't forget the warrants or the impact, those are kinda important and tend to be left out more often than not.

-Crossfire does not matter, I do not listen to crossfire, I'm probably writing notes on the ballot. If something important happens in cx bring it up in speech proper

Other Stuff:

-Progressive arguments? Used to be okay with them, now it's a run at your own risk. I probably don't remember much. I was kinda a disclosure and paraphrasing-bad hack but if you win the argument you win the argument. No I will not vote on impact turns that teams should lose for disclosing or cutting cards. Yes you need an offense to win an RVI. Yes you automatically lose if it's competing interps and you don't defend a competing interp. Yes theory is apriori to case.

-Speed? I used to be able to process things pretty quick but I'm old now and out of practice so my brain probably can't handle super speed too well. Go at your own risk.

-Evidence? If I can resolve the round without looking at evidence, I will not call for evidence. I will not call for evidence if the round is difficult to resolve. However, I will call for evidence if I am told to do so and it affects the outcome of the round or if I am told that evidence is misrepresented or miscut. If your evidence ethics are hot steaming garbage that's an easy way to get L20. You've been warned

-Presumption? Used to presume neg, I guess that's still a thing? Convince me otherwise, y'all are debaters.

-Speaks? Speaks for content, I don't care about delivery unless I can't understand you. You get three clears before I put my pen down. If you've disclosed, remind me and I'll bump you.

If you have any other questions please ask. I've undoubtedly forgotten something that's probably important

Jacob Mammen Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 12:54 PM CDT

Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX

Myself:

I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (jamammen01@gmail.com).

PF Paradigm:

My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.

3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).

4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession

5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped

6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary

7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it

12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.

15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.

Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement

Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way

Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (jamammen01@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.

O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.

General Evaluation

- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.

- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.

- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.

Speech Preferences

- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.

Framing

- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter

Weighing/Collapsing

- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.

- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.

- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)

Extensions

- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.

- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.

- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.

Speaks/Speed:

TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.

- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (jamammen01@gmail.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .

- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.

- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.

- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.

- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.

o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53914

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=art&search_last=tay

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=84007

Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (jamammen01@gmail.com)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

LD/CX Paradigm

If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.

Extemp Paradigm

IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.

If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.

Random

Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.

Lastly, have fun!

Asher Moll Thomas S. Wootton HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 24, 2020 at 10:26 PM EDT

Hello

I debated PF at St. John's in Houston for 3 years on the Texas and national circuit.

1) Decided to put this at the top of my paradigm because I think it is important. I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a REAL violation in the round. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation rather than forcing me to evaluate progressive argumentation. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible.

2) Tech > truth, but my threshold for responses to arguments goes down if I think the argument is stupid

3) I am fine with speed, but don't go crazy -- if you spread I will probably lose you

4) I refuse to vote on an argument without a warrant. Even if a team drops a turn for example you still have to extend the warrant or else I don't care

5) Extensions in PF are bad. My threshold for extensions is somewhat high. If you go for an argument in summary/final focus, I expect you to extend both the link and the impact, at least

6) Collapsing is good. Going for multiple arguments in the late round can work, but I think for most rounds, collapsing on one or two pieces of offense will serve you best

7) Not voting on arguments in final that weren't in summary, please don't try that, I will notice

8) Weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided I think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. That said, you should still weigh in case I grant your opponents some offense. If I think both sides are winning offense, I resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. I will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there is no other weighing in the round

9) Frontlining efficiently in 2nd rebuttal is a good idea and is generally strategic

10) 1st summary does not have to extend defense if the 2nd rebuttal does not frontline. Extending offense and weighing is fine. Second summary always has to extend defense in addition to going for offense and weighing. It is also probably worth noting that I am little more lenient with weighing in 1st summary -- if you do not do it or do just a little it will not hurt you nearly as much as if it happens in 2nd summary

11) Offensive overviews in general are probably bad for debate and you should not read them in front of me. If you read one in second rebuttal especially, my threshold for responses will be EXTREMELY low. Also 95% of the time you could just take parts from the overview and read as DAs or turns so it really isn't necessary

12) Card with warrant > analytic with warrant > card with no warrant > analytic with no warrant

13) You need to signpost, I will not flow if you do not

14) Any offense not responded to after 2nd rebuttal is conceded, you can only weigh against it

15) Please be chill in cross. You can crack jokes and have fun, but there is a very fine line between perceptual dominance and being rude. I will dock speaks for overt rudeness/being overly aggressive. I don't care if you won every crossfire, crossfire does not win my ballot. Grand cross is a mess but can be used strategically. Try to make the most of it

16) I will call for evidence if I feel it is necessary to make my decision/if the other team tells me to. I am less likely to call for evidence in prelims, though. If I find out that the evidence is misconstrued, depending on how bad the violation is, I may drop the team

17) If neither side has any offense at the end of the round, I will presume first speaking team. This is because I believe that 2nd speaking is a huge advantage and if you are unable to capitalize on that advantage by generating offense you should not be rewarded

18) If you are at any point racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. you are getting the L and your speaks will be nuked. It should go without saying to just not be a bad person

19) The last thing I'll say is that, while I will always have a special place in my heart for debate, I know that this activity is not the best sometimes and can be overly toxic. I will try my hardest to make every debater feel welcome

If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them at the tournament or on Facebook. You can find my Facebook here

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

Incorporating Frank Ocean lyrics in cross/speeches will result in a speaker point boost

Naufil Mulla Hire 5 rounds

Noah Ogata Hire 5 rounds

Conrad Palor Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:02 AM MDT

Background

***Please add me to the email chain. My email is conradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tab as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments so I've summarized some thoughts below.

DAs

- Fine with most DAs. If reading any politics DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic Link evidence.

- I’m fine with Kritikal affirmatives, however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer Affs that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise. I also am generally persuaded by the argument that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a methods debate, but am open to arguments otherwise.

CPs

- I’m fine with most counter plans although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

- I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

- I default to perms are test of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and default to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

- I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

- I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

- I take a tabula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author last name and year in the back half of the ro und. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

- In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

- Please collapse

- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

- Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clear if I can't flow what you are saying

- Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedurals

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

- I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

- I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note, I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

Ray Percival Shepton High School 4 rounds

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 2:57 AM CDT

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Saritha Pitta Jasper HS 5 rounds None

Andrew Poovey Hire 5 rounds

Prasanna Rajagopalan Jasper HS 5 rounds

Viswajith Rajagopalan Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 23, 2021 at 2:31 PM EDT

**Note**

I haven't judged in a hot minute so I don't know every arg on this topic but as long as you explain your links + doing everything below I'll be able to keep up with yall.

LOOK AT THIS | WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

Please weigh for the love of god. also kindly don't take super long to trade and pull up evidence it just wastes so much time. sidenote: meta-weighing makes me feel some type of way too.

General

Tech over truth. PF is a game just play it right - collapse, extend and weigh.

Organization

I prefer line by line rebuttals and summary. Voters for final focus is fine. If you're doing something wack or even if you're not signpost por favor.

Strategy

Respond to turns read on your case. Still tryna decide if defense is sticky after its been changed to 3 mins.

Framework

Framing is nice.

Crossfire

I don't really pay attention to CX so if something important happens bring it up in a speech. If nobody has questions just end it early and everyone gets + .2 speaker points.

Weighing

If the round is close weighing will decide which way my ballot is going. Also meta-weigh if necessary (i.e. explain why I should prefer your weighing over theirs.) Also weighing in every speech may not be a terrible idea.

Extensions

Extend the argument WITH IT'S WARRANT (@noah ogata). If you just say extend this - newsflash - I won't.

Evidence

Please don't misrepresent evidence. I'll call for evidence if I feel like it's necessary.

Summary/FF

Do a line-by-line summary and FF and then weigh. If it's not in summary then I won't care if it's in FF.

Speed

I'm pretty decent at flowing just don't go too crazy fast or else I might lose you.

Speaks

27-30. Don't be a douche.

Bring a picture of Noah Ogata, Jacob Mammen, Pranay Gundam, or Mukund Rao to round and I'll give you +.1 speaks each.

No bonuses for Squid Game references but I will laugh.

Progressive Debate

Not super experienced but I'll evaluate it.

Feel free to ask me any questions.

pls weigh i beg.

Sruthi Ramaswamy Hire 5 rounds

Prashanth Rao William P. Clements High School 1 rounds

Chetan Reddy Hire 5 rounds

Noah Romo Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 6:47 AM EDT

Updated for Plano West 2021

I debated for Cypress Bay and Plano West. I am a second year student at Florida State University.

Email: noahromo17@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth. Now don't go crazy and not read the rest of this because you won't win if you just spread through a bunch of dumb arguments. The way to my ballot is still 100% through warranting your arguments well and weighing. Also, if you are reading cut cards in case, tell me, and I will bump your speaks by +0.5.

Please be conscious of your opponents and audience in the room. If you're reading anything that may upset people in the round, you should read a trigger warning or content warning (the best way to do this would be anonymously through a google form or smth).

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, or transphobic, you will be dropped.

Preflow before round, keep track of your time and your opponent's time and don't steal each other's prep.

Don't assume I know the topic well.

You can email me or message me on Facebook with any questions as well and hmu if you need a coach!

Important Stuff:

1. This is first because it is the most important part of debate. WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH. Weighing should be comparative and warranted just like any other argument (Ex: Don't just tell me that your argument should win because your impact has a higher magnitude, tell me why having a higher magnitude makes your argument more important). If I am conflicted between different weighing mechanisms, meta weigh, or else I may default to one mechanism over another and you may not like my decision. I generally enjoy consistency between you and your partner's weighing mechanisms. Also weighing links and warrants is just as important as impact calc. If you don't get it by now, WEIGH because debate is all about comparing your arguments.

2. Speak fast if you want, I know I was a generally fast debater, but I will doc your speaker points if you aren't clear. Speaking slower can also be just as strategic and powerful, especially when it comes to emphasizing certain arguments on my flow. And if you're going to truly spread then I can flow it, but I will drop your speaks if you don't send a speech doc.

3. Any offense you want me to evaluate needs to be extended properly and in both Summary and Final Focus.

4. Whether it's paraphrasing or cut cards, please make sure your evidence is saying what you say it does. If someone tells me to call for it and it doesn't say that, it may cost you in a tight round. If your evidence is misrepresented and it's important I may drop you. Also, read dates please.

5. Defense from first rebuttal is sticky unless it is frontlined in second rebuttal (Now keep in mind that with a 3-minute summary I think important defense should be extended). Note: Turns are offense so they NEED TO be extended in first summary if you want them in final, and they should be responded to in first rebuttal.

6. Turns from first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal, or else they are not frontlined.

7. Organization is key when it comes to giving a cohesive speech. Make sure your speeches are structured and signpost as you go. A roadmap always helps, or just let me know where you're starting.

8. No, I won't evaluate anything that was said in crossfire unless I hear you being excessively rude, belittling, or hateful to your opponents in any way. If you want me to evaluate it, it's gotta be in a speech.

9. If both teams are ok with it I will disclose at the end of the round. Tell me if it's a bubble round and I'll give you both high speaks :)

10. If you are going for turns, remember to extend the impacts and weigh them. And if you extend a link turn, you should extend your opponent's impact if they drop it.

11. A frontline is not a case extension. Extending your link chain and impact is a case extension. You must both extend and frontline if your argument is responded to.

12. I love framing debates, I think they are some of the most educational and interesting debates I have had so don't be afraid to have them. But if you are reading a framing argument, please try to read it in case and not past first rebuttal. Reading a long framing argument, in second rebuttal, that is very critical to the way the round is going to collapse is pretty abusive and it's going to annoy me.

More Progressive Stuff:

1. I liked to read lots of framing arguments, sometimes read shells, and a K every now and then. I also competed in Policy debate sometimes (not saying I was that good though lol). So, I think progressive debate is cool and has a large potential to increase the educational value of public forum, but only if orchestrated correctly. Which means don't read progressive arguments against novices or inexperienced opponents. If you truly believe you are 'so much better' than the team you are facing, let's see you win the round on my flow by weighing and warranting your arguments well because that is how to set a good example for new debaters. I will tank your speaks or possibly drop you if you use any of these arguments to exclude your opponents.

2. I think theory is cool and you should stick to shells that target specific in-round abuses. It's a good idea to ask me before round if I will be receptive to a specific shell. I default to no RVIs/competing interps.

3. So I will evaluate whatever argument you put in front of me as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. But just know that I am not as comfortable with Ks, tricks, and other more nuanced progressive arguments. You can run them and I will try my best to evaluate them, but you should probably go a bit slower when reading them.

4. I will evaluate just about any argument except for a couple of specific ones: Oppression good, death good, and 30 speaker points theory. If you want to know why I believe any of these arguments are bad I am happy to start a dialogue with you. If there are any other specific shells or arguments you wonder if I will be receptive to or not, do not hesitate to ask me before the round starts.

Speaks:

I will generally give out 27-29.

Debaters get too angry nowadays. If you debate well and are lighthearted/funny you will get high speaks. Rounds are always most educational when they not only clash, but everyone is having a good time!

I'll give you a 30 if you really impress me or make a funny reference to a good rapper (Whatever rapper you reference though has to have BARS, I'm talking five fingers of death bars).

Jokes and funny debates are my favorite. I personally thought debate was the most fun part of high school because it's like this awesome game of four-dimensional chess. So don't let frustrations get to you because enjoying your rounds is by far most important.

I'll intervene as little as possible because I want you to decide my ballot for me.

Ask me before round if you have any specific questions.

Dean Rosnett Plano East Sr. High 2 rounds

Katelynn Shadman Colleyville Heritage High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 5:34 PM CDT

please put me on the email chain: kateshadman@gmail.com

^^please send docs, don't dump an entire speech into the body of the email

Colleyville Heritage HS (TX) '20: 4 years PF (tfa and nat circuit)

University of Oklahoma '24: 4(ish) years policy

pronouns: she/her/hers

tl;dr (pf)

do whatever you want, i vote on the flow. your barrier to speed is your opponent (if they can’t handle it don’t do it). please warrant and weigh your arg and terminalize your impacts — if you do this you will most likely win. 2nd rebuttal should frontline, if they don’t defense is sticky in 1st summary. if it’s in final it needs to be in summary. have good evidence ethics.

come in pre flowed and send the email chain at the start time

for roadmaps: just tell me which piece of paper to have on top

tl;dr (cx)

my only cx experience is in college, so I'm not as with it as the other college policy debaters

I don't care what you read, I'll listen to pretty much anything. write my ballot for me, I love judge instruction (especially on the K, implicate it to the round plss). I'm biased for a good policy round but don't get me wrong, I love a good K (most familiar with set col, security, and cap). pls label each piece of paper in the 1NC. regardless of the argument, make sure to extend the link (really hard to vote on anything in the 2AR/NR if it's missing) and implicate your args.

come in pre flowed and send the email chain at the start time

for roadmaps: just tell me which piece of paper to have on top

welcome to my paradigm:

*before your speech, pls just tell me what piece of paper to start on and I'll follow you from there (cx: just give me the order of the sheets of paper)

Warrant, Weigh, Win- it's that simple.

- it needs to be on the flow, I need clean extensions and weighing if you want me to vote on it

(please weigh. please, please, please weigh)

- for it to be an extension, I need claim, warrant, and impact

- tell me why/how you're winning and why your argument matters (write my ballot for me)

- terminalize impacts

- please come in pre-flowed and prepared to debate (i want to start the round asap)

- speech doc/email chain should be sent at the start time of the round (or earlier, just not later)

- signpost, I want to write down all of your wonderful arguments (in the right places)

- speed: i don't care how fast you go, know your opponent (if they can't handle the speed -- don't go fast, if they don't have experience flowing off speech docs, this isn't the round for them to learn), if you're going to go sicko mode, give me a doc, otherwise, I flow on paper if I'm not writing stuff down, slow down

pf specific:

- quality > quantity

- tech > truth

- default util

- I don't like calling for ev. you should be doing the ev analysis yourselves, ie. compare the ev between speeches then say it in the speech (I won't vote on it if it's not on the flow)

rebuttal:

- 1st rebuttal shouldn't be doing case extensions (unless it's an ov, fw, or weighing you want flowed on your case), i already got the args from case, it's just repetitive

- 2nd rebuttal: pls frontline offense

summary:

- if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense is not sticky

- if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, defense is sticky

- please weigh (pls, pls, pls)

final focus:

- final focus should mirror the summary (if it's not in the summary it shouldn't be in final) (weighing should also be the same)

- PLEASE DON'T GO FOR EVERYTHING, collapse and narrow down the debate

crossfire:

- start whenever y'all are ready, don't wait on me

progressive args (pf)

I would rather not but, do whatever you want, but, it's extremely hard to do the work you need to do within the pf time constraints and the bar doesn't lower just because it's pf. if you are going to do something funky, one of the biggest mistakes I see is not implicating the K (or whatever) to the round, make sure you do work on page comparison otherwise, it's really hard to see how the argument is relevant to the round. tell me how to evaluate the arg in the context of the round.

"progressive args don't belong in pf" isn't a response (unless you have a beautifully curated block on this arg), you need some legitimate ink on the flow

again, I would rather not judge progressive rounds in pf, if you want to, you run the risk of losing the ballot a lot easier than if you debated traditionally

evidence:

don't do anything stupid and don't take forever to pull up evidence, evidence should be cut properly and cited with a working link, if your opponents are doing something bad/sketch with ev make it a voting issue--I am very likely to vote on it (if it's legit)

personal thing about ev- evidence shouldn't be paraphrased when it's introduced into the round, you should be reading from cards, obviously this gets lost in the back half of the round (which is fine)-- if you are going to paraphrase make sure you have the cut cards available and that you are representing them correctly

Anika Shah Hire 5 rounds

Vani Shah Westwood 5 rounds

Krishna Shamanna Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 28, 2023 at 8:32 AM CDT

Please stop speaking so fast. I max out at 220 wpm. Past that, I'll only catch bits and pieces of it all, and that is not a good position for any of us.
*if you have me in any other debate event than PF or LD: I'm so sorry. I'm not gonna lie to you: this won't go well, and I apologize in advance.
Yes, put me on the email chain. krishna.shamanna2401@gmail.com
*For LDers: they've been sticking me in ya'll's rounds all year despite my objections, so I've reluctantly become somewhat mildly knowledgeable about how the event works, and can safely say that I won't be the absolute worst judge in this event, and should generally be able to follow along most substance. That said, please treat me like a flay judge, and ease up on the speed and the jargon, because if ya'll start spreading or feel the need to try some new-fangled progressive argumentation, I promise you that I will have no idea what's going on and will either default to the team I can comprehend or literally just flip a coin if I don't know what's going on for either of ya'll.
No longer relevant because COVID, but leaving it here for posterity: Bring me food and I'll give you a 30 (just you, not your partner, unless he/she/they brings me food too-- no freebies).
Some stuff abt me: I debated in PF for two years for Westwood High School, one of them on the national circuit where I achieved mild success. Now I'm a second year out. Here's what you rly need to know:
TLDR: Warrant, weigh, and don't be abusive. Tech>Truth, but don't be offensive and/or dumb. Yes, I disclose, and no, you don't have to.

Long version:
1. Yes, I intervene. 2 scenarios where it will happen: Either you're being incredibly offensive (sexist/racist/homophobic, etc.) in the round, or you lie about evidence. To clarify the first: I haven't seen many egregious examples of this type of conduct, but suffice to say: when you cross a line, I will drop you. I don't care if you won the flow-- if you actively contribute to making the debate space more exclusionary, I refuse to reward you for that with a W. To clarify the latter: It's one thing to marginally overstate the extent to which a card supports your contention. It's another thing entirely to cherrypick the part of a card that supports your argument, while ignoring the entire list of answers to your argument made in the next paragraph. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I will simply drop a piece of evidence if I find it to be misconstrued. But if your entire link chain is based on one card, and that card is a straight-up lie (at least the way you read it), I will drop the entire argument from my flow and refuse to evaluate it. I won't necessarily drop you for it, if you have some other source of offense that wins you the round, but you will be at a disadvantage from that point forth, and your speaker points will be dismal. This has happened exactly once so far in my time judging-- please do not be the second, whoever is reading this.
2. I'm nice on speaker points now. Don't worry too much, just be respectful.
3. I heavily dislike presumption/default votes, and expect you to not put me in that position. If you're confused about what this means, let me elaborate: A very disturbing situation is one in which I have to view two or more paths to the ballot that are both equally strong. Don't misunderstand-- this most often means you're doing something wrong. For example, if I have two ways to evaluate the round and I can literally flip a coin to figure out who gets the W because you frontline and extend completely separate arguments while doing 0 comparative weighing, I will consider factors such as quality of extensions, which scenario is more of an offensive argument to vote off of, etc. to make my decision. To clarify, this DOES NOT mean I will intervene to give the W to the team I like more in the round. It just means that the team does the better debating in a bad round should win the debate, rather than me reducing the ballot to the outcome of the coin flip-- ergo, no "presuming" anything.
4. Speak fast if you want (mostly-- but if you're over 250 words per minute, we'll have trouble), as long as you’re clear, and your opponents don’t get spread out of the round (hint: if this is a potential issue, ask if they would like to establish a speed threshold). But if you wanna ignore this, just let me be clear about something: I. Am. An. Extremely. Lazy. Person. I try to intervene as little as possible in debate rounds, and that extends to your speaking. If I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you-- I shouldn't be doing that anyways. It's your job as a debater to convince me of stuff, so do it right.
5. CPs/Ks/Theory and progressive whatnot--- Please, don't do it unless there's no other option. There are some situations where it's unavoidable: If your opponents paraphrase like 100000 cards and spread to place a boatload of responses, leaving you with not nearly enough time to make responses and call for evidence and whatnot, sure, run theory about spreading, paraphrasing, or whatever-- but it has to be egregious abuse. And even then, please dumb it down rather reading a shell. This event was designed to be a form of debate accessible to everyone, and I believe these types of arguments, while sometimes necessary, undermine that purpose. Not only do I doubt I can evaluate them correctly, but I'm frankly tired of seeing teams (you know who you are) from big schools with multiple coaches that are flown out every other weekend, go into round and spread theory shells against small-school teams (from predominantly local, lay circuits) about how small schools are supposedly harmed by non-disclosure or paraphrasing (this means I almost never evaluate disclosure theory).
6. Paraphrasing- I don't understand why people are so uptight about this in PF. Reading direct quotes doesn't mean you can't misrepresent what the evidence says, so the logic behind the "no paraphrasing" requirements that many judges/coaches set doesn't really make sense to me. Again, this event is designed to be accessible to everyone-- in some cases, that necessitates paraphrasing evidence in order to articulate your arguments in the clearest way possible. But independent of that, I think it's important to realize that with the time limits being what they are in this event, sometimes paraphrasing is the only way that you can have enough time to make an argument at a deeper level and really provide a complete narrative for the judge to evaluate. So please, paraphrase if you want, and don't read theory against it unless there's actually an egregious case of misrepresentation that changed the coarse of the whole round.
7. I shouldn’t have to say this but: Claims/Statistics need warrants before they can be evaluated as arguments, and this applies to all offense and defense in the round. If you extend an impact without extending the warrant (or vice-versa), I count it as dropped-- not weighable. Extending an argument, ESPECIALLY with the new extra minute of summary, should be done cleanly, with everything important mentioned in both summary and final focus. If neither team does this, I won't be happy.
8. First summary is no longer allowed to skip extending terminal defense. If you're gonna extend it in final focus, I want it in summary as well. This year, the NSDA has literally given you an entire extra minute of summary AND prep time. There is no excuse anymore.
9. If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but I'm cool with it), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns.
10. Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, AT A MINIMUM. I think you should frontline defense as well, but I won't penalize you for not doing it. I like overviews, and don’t care if they’re in second rebuttal. Any overview read in first rebuttal MUST be answered in second rebuttal, otherwise it is conceded. You can allocate your time however you want-- I did 2-2 splits throughout my (very short) career, and it usually worked.
11. Terminal defense extensions are good. Turns are better. You can drop your case at any point in the round and still have a shot, assuming you did it right.
12. Anything in final focus must be in summary, except weighing (It doesn’t matter to me when you do it, as long as you do it because too many of you don't). Everyone needs to weigh. No one does. Please do. If not, you run the risk that the round becomes a messy stalemate (happens more often than you’d think), forcing me to intervene, and neither you nor I will appreciate the outcome of that.
13. Weighing is more than saying buzzwords like probability, scope, magnitude, etc. You actually need to explain it. In fact, if you just get to the point and avoid saying those buzzwords (as in just say "Our impacts are more important because 1) we save 150 million people, while they only save 5 thousand, 2) We give you global benefits while they're restricted to China, 3) The chance of accessing X benefit is X% more likely to happen that nuclear war, which is almost possible today because of mutual deterrence"-- ALL WITHOUT SAYING THE WORDS "WE OUTWEIGH ON MAGNITUDE, SCOPE, AND PROBABILITY, BC ___") , I can guarantee you'll have extra time to warrant and even add some more weighing mechanisms, and maybe even some meta-weighing-- and then you'll be EXTREMELY likely to get my ballot, along with a FAT 30 :)).
14. I strongly prefer that teams collapse in summary/final focus on key issues. You can go line by line in summary if you want, but by the time you get to final focus, I think you should be collapsing on 1-2 voting issues in the round, and CRYSTALLIZING.
15. Please have your evidence (preferably cut cards, but PDFs are ok if you paraphrase) available when your opponents call for it. As someone who debated with a very unreliable laptop and frequently used paywalled articles, I know sometime it takes some time to pull up evidence, so I'm slightly forgiving with this and will do my best to not be unfair. But try to not take it too far, because it's annoying, and if I'm on a panel, I can guarantee that I'll be one of the only ones who'll be nice about this.
16. Misconstrued cards will be dropped from the round. If I catch you straight up lying/falsifying, you’ll be able to tell; my face (particularly my eyebrows) is very expressive when I’m angry. Suffice to say: you’ll get an L25, and you’ll know you did, well before I announce it, post it on tabroom, and loudly scold you.
17. I don’t like jerks, but I love sass!. Please, by all means-- Be funny!!! (if you can haha) Tournaments are too depressing most of the time, for everyone, so ya'll might as well make this an entertaining experience for all of us.
18. If you are being overtly offensive (as in racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.), you will get an L25, period.

Mason Sheu Hire 5 rounds

Alina Shivji Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 15, 2023 at 1:05 PM EDT

TL;DR: warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain: Alina.shivji1@gmail.com

SPEED

Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS

Feel free to read them. That said, these arguments don’t typically function well in PF due to time constraints. So, I do prefer substance in PF. If you do debate progressively, note that crossfire and flex prep serves as accountability on your advocacy. My default is reasonability. If you want me to approach these args from a different standpoint, tell me.

Feel free to read arguments about any of the -isms. But, make sure in the process, you’re not otherizing. For example, if you are not a Muslim woman who identifies with the LGBT+ community, don’t read arguments about it. Also, if you are reading any arguments concerning sexual harassment/assault/suicide/etc., I expect a trigger warning BEFORE the round.

EXTENSIONS

I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.

Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined

FRONTLINING

respond to offensive responses ie turns and terminal defense before you access weighing in the second rebuttal

WEIGHING

Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (metaweighing).

Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until the second FF.

INTERVENTION

I try not to intervene as much as possible. If there’s no offense in the round and its a policy-oriented topic, I’ll default neg aka the status quo. If it's not a policy-oriented topic, I'll default towards what's most probable.

I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. If the evidence is miscut, I won’t evaluate it and I will penalize your speaks for it.

TECH > TRUTH

If you didn't say it in the round, don't expect me to evaluate it regardless of how "true" the argument may be. That said, use common sense and have good judgement. If you say something incorrect, it won't influence my decision, but I will call you out after the round.

IMPLICATE!

The link to an argument matters but if you don't tell me HOW it fits in the round, I won't know what to do with it. So, tell me what argument serves as turns/terminal defense, why, and what that means for you/your opponents in the round.

Leo Shue Richard Montgomery High School 2 rounds

Raj Solanki Elkins High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 6:10 AM CDT

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

~~30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptop~~I will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.
My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument
dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

"I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want
Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.
There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.
I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.
Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

take flex prep if needed

Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

Cole Stacey Vestavia Hills High School 2 rounds None

Kirthna Subash Hire 5 rounds

Hiba Suhail Clovis North High School 5 rounds None

Joseph Uhler Westlake 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 4:46 AM CDT

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

Brandon Wang Hire 5 rounds

Emma Wang Thomas S. Wootton HS 3 rounds

Jacqueline Wei Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:20 AM CDT

I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. tell me and I will intervene as necessary.

I competed in PF and Extemp for Plano West and graduated in 2019.

***Please preflow!***

If you don’t paraphrase and read all cut cards in case, tell me and I will give both speakers +1 speaks. Paraphrasing in rebuttal is fine (unless you misconstrue the evidence!)

If both teams agree, I am willing to turn GCX into three extra minutes of prep for everyone.

Important Stuff:

Speaking fast is fine. I can flow spreading but you will receive significant speaker point hits and I will not like you.
Defense from 1st rebuttal sticks unless responded to; defense in 2nd rebuttal does not stick.
No independent contentions in rebuttal; DAs are fine.
I prefer all weighing to be set up in summary at the latest (there's 3 minutes now, use the extra minute for weighing). If you'd like to set up weighing before that, go for it (often strategic!). I will not evaluate new weighing in final focus unless it is the only way to resolve the round. If you don't weigh, I will intervene with a common-sense weighing mechanism (probability or magnitude). I will not presume neg unless there is zero offense in the round.
I do not strictly require 2nd rebuttal to respond to offense or defense from 1st rebuttal.
carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. “This is unwarranted” is an acceptable response. Don’t card dump.
I am unwilling to evaluate new arguments in 2nd final focus. If your delink suddenly becomes a turn, or your impact suddenly becomes a million times bigger, or your link suddenly has a new "nuance" in 2nd final focus, I will ignore you.
I do not think frontlines are sufficient to serve as case extensions. You should extend not only your entire link chain + impact but also the warrants as to why your links/impacts are true.
I'll call for evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

Speaks: 27 - 30 unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If you have any questions, ask before round.

Tony Wei Hire 5 rounds

Santi Weiland Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 10:44 AM CDT

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, closed out Texas PF State in 2020 and qualified for TOC twice.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Please for the love of everything don't say "off the clock roadmap", just tell me what the structure is. Eg their case then my case or starting on the meta then substance or framework then ill signpost from there.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded :/ You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic (that being said I’ve also been out of the activity for 2 years so don’t push it too hard)

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read or I'll heavily dock your speaks like 25 type beat. For the most part I’m not familiar with weird stuff and wack philosophy stuff, but norm-settings/in-round rules and parameters are all good.

Also I'm aight with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round. They're funny and make rounds more interesting. I won’t automatically drop you for speeding through paragraph theory-style blips, but if you’re called out on it as a voter I’ll consider it if it’s a core part of the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg. I'm aight with abusive arguments as a response just please warrant responses. Most of the time people will ignore 3+ warrants on abuse responses so it's not a bad strat tbh.

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed and dock your speaks.

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it, like even if you say it I'll write it down and then scribble it out with an overwhelming amount of question marks.

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic.

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too, just gimme a heads up

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20." - Cara Day

I will also disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want. You can ask me literally any question on my decision and I'll even show you my flow if you want to see how I came to that conclusion.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage."

Side Note:

I am most receptive to narrative style debate and pass none of my personal beliefs. I’ll vote for you even if I hate your argument and think it’s complete BS, it’s up to y’all to make rebuttals so run whatever you want my dudes.

Sanjitha Yedavalli Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 29, 2024 at 10:00 AM CDT

hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. PLEASE signpost.

3. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.

4. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.

5. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.

6. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, just send me your speech doc before just so we avoid any issues

Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.

Theory: I will probably never vote off of it because I do not understand it well enough.

Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.

Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.

I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.

Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being a dick)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at sanjitha.y@gmail.com

Matthew Yekell Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 17, 2020 at 12:05 PM CDT

St. John's 20 // Stanford 25

Pronouns: he/him/his

Debated on the Texas circuit (PF) for four years and on the national circuit for one.

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

Your safety is more important to me than a debate round. What this means is:

- I will NOT tolerate sexist/racist/homophobic/etc behavior from debaters. I’ll drop you if you try it. I think that most debaters are good people, so unless you’re a real piece of work, you shouldn’t worry about this. Just be respectful.

- Sensitive arguments require a content warning. Ask everyone in the round if they are comfortable with the argument you are reading. If anyone’s uncomfortable, don’t read the argument. No means no.

- If you ever feel unsafe, don’t hesitate to let me know. I will try my best to accommodate.

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

General PF notes:

- Your warranting matters more than your evidence. Make sure you warrant your case/responses/blocks. The more you warrant, the more I'll enjoy judging you.

- Speed - I can normally handle speed; however, speaking really fast during an online tournament is not the move tbh.

- I’m tech over truth? I say this hesitantly because I don’t think this should give debaters free rein to run absurdly false arguments; if we all know that the arg’s untrue and the opponents just provide a warrant as to why it’s untrue, that’ll count as defense for me. That being said, I’ll buy your arg if it’s not responded to.

- I’m a sucker for narrative-style debates. In my opinion, it makes framing, extensions, and weighing a lot easier. I still require full link-warrant-impact extensions, but if I understand the argument as a part of a bigger picture, I’m more inclined to vote on it. Plus, I prefer these debates over the usual blippy extension of a poverty impact versus the probability weighing of a war link that always seems to happen in PF.

- I give more credence to weighing the earlier it’s done in the debate. Weigh early! :P

My beliefs on “progressive” debate norms:

Fundamentally, I want the debate space to be accessible to everyone. I think that progressive debate has the potential to work towards and against this goal. With that said...

- I’d prefer for progressive arguments to be read against opponents that can actually engage with it. Running prog args against novices is not the most educational, and it’s a great way for you to get a low-point win at best. Don’t use prog args to exclude your opponents from the round or I will be very sad.

- I will evaluate theory because I think it can be good for checking back abuses in round and for advancing better norms. Theory args need to be extended in every speech or else I’m not voting off of it. I’d prefer if you read a shell (A is the interp, B is the violation, etc) but paragraph theory is fine too. Please implicate the theory args for me. I need to know why, for example, disclosure is important for debate. On that note…

Common sense stuff:

o I default to util framing. Alternative framing should be warranted.

o You should frontline in second rebuttal.

o First summary should extend defense.

o Summary and FF should mirror each other.

o Voters are cool!

o Use your FF as if you were writing the RFD for me!

This bio was largely borrowed from the lovely and incredible Sylvia Duarte:)

Jason Zhang Hire 5 rounds

Max Zhang Hire 5 rounds

Stephanie Zhang Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 15, 2020 at 1:26 PM CDT

I competed all 4 years in PF and graduated from Plano West in 2018.

UPDATE: I am old and semi-rusty. I have not judged in forever because college...life...this pandemic...take your pick. Therefore, if I'm not up to speed on the new trend in debate, bear with me.

General:

Tech over truth, but please don't take this as an indication to card dump. Cards without warrants hold little weight in my mind. My favorite saying is quality over quantity. My second favorite saying is "be like a whale and not a bunny." Bunnies are fluffy. Whales weigh a ton. In short, please, PLEASE, PLEASE WEIGH. It makes my job as a judge soooooo much easier if you weigh your arguments, and then I won't have to intervene and make everyone unhappy.

Note: I probably won't have done extensive research on the topics on hand so make sure to explain your arguments clearly, especially if you're not running stock arguments.

Signposting

SIGNPOSTING IS CRUCIAL!!! I am sleep deprived from doing debate and college hasn't really helped with this situation. This doesn't mean that I'm going to fall asleep on you, but it's a warning that if you go too fast without signposting I will get lost on the flow especially if there's a lot on it. If you're not going the conventional top down approach signposting is even more crucial. You don't want me wasting time trying to find where you are on the flow and miss an argument that you place. That being said, if you're going the traditional top down line-by-line approach, please DO NOT give an off time road map. It's an unnecessary waste of time.

Framework

It would be nice if a framework appears and is warranted in constructive. It will help with the weighing later on in the round, granted if it get's extended in the latter half of the round. Simply stating that "our opponents didn't state a framework meaning that our's is the default" does not mean I buy it. Frameworks must also be WARRANTED, otherwise I default cost-benefit analysis and that might not be so great for you.

Rebuttals

Line-by-line is preferable. I don't require 2nd rebuttals to completely respond to 1st rebuttals. However, you might find that you have a much greater chance of winning if you respond to turns that your opponents place. I think it's pretty abusive if opposing turns are responded to in 2nd summary. 2nd rebuttals don't have to respond to defense but if you have the time then by all means please do. In general please don't card dump. If you can place multi-warranted arguments instead that would be great! If you manage to weigh at the end that's even better!!

Summary/FF

WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH! If different weighing mechanisms are given, then WEIGH the WEIGHING MECHANISMS. Defense sticks unless the opponents have already responded to it. Summary is where you collapse, COLLAPSE, COLLAPSE! Remember what my favorite saying is. Any arguments you want me to evaluate must be extended and appear in both speeches. And saying "extend contention one across the flow" is not extending. Some form of warrant and impact must be explained in order for arguments to be considered to be extended. Also don't extend through ink. If you try to, you just wasted part of your precious 2 minutes because I'm not going to consider it at the end of the round. Final focus should mainly be big picture voters. At the end of the day, why is your narrative ultimately the one I should vote for.

Evidence:

I'll call for evidence if it's contested in the round, the other team explicitly tells me to, or I think it's super sketchy. I HIGHLY prefer if the pdf of the evidence. Do not show me the paraphrased version of the evidence you read. If you can't produce the evidence or I think that you're blatantly misconstruing the evidence then I will drop it from the round. That means check your evidence before rounds start. It would suck if I had to drop you guys because of bad evidence.

Speaks:

My range is 28-30 unless you are straight up rude, racist, homophobic, etc. in round. Then I won't hesitate to tank your speaks. Otherwise, it's generally high speaks especially if you have a really good round narrative.

General Courtesies:

Don't be rude in crossfire, especially GCX. Don't scream at each other. Don't ramble during crossfire either. No one likes the person who decides that crossfire is just another 3 minute speech. If crossfire ends early then it ends early. There's no need to prolong it if no one has anymore questions. I expect you guys to hold each other accountable with prep time because I definitely won't be keeping track of it for you. If evidence is called for between teams, don't take forever to pull it up. Make sure to have it saved in some accessible way. LET'S TRY TO END ON TIME, OR EVEN BETTER YET EARLY because no one wants to be stuck here longer than necessary and no one will thank us for pushing back the tournament.

Progressive Debate

I'll evaluate these same as any other argument in the round, but if you get too technical then I will get considerably lost. This is PF, let's try to stick to what's generally considered PF.

Feel free to ask me any SPECIFIC questions before the round starts, and if you have questions about the rfd/ballot afterwards feel free to come find me! Otherwise, I look forward to the round!

Yizhen Zhen Hire 5 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Plano West TFATOC Qualifier

2020 — Plano West, US

PFD Paradigm List

Judges