I graduated from The Montgomery Academy in Montgomery, AL. I competed for 4 years in PF, Congress, IX/DX, and Impromptu. PF and Congress were my main events. I competed on both local (AL) and national circuits.

General:

be civil and respect your opponents

I like any and all arguments (excluding discriminatory or offensive arguments or rhetoric). If you make a logically valid argument I can vote for it, but every argument you decide to go for needs to be well fleshed out in round.

Spreading should not happen in PF. In general speed is fine, but try to avoid speaking too quickly, especially over zoom. If I can't understand you, I will clear you and then expect you to slow down a bit. If you do not, that will be reflected in your speaker points as well as on the flow if I simply cannot flow your argument/evidence/card tag. Discuss with your opponent about comfort levels with speed before the round starts- fairness and accessibility are key. If your opponent can not understand speed, do not speed.

PF

things I like to see in a round

1. Weighing- this is most important part of the debate. I can't do this for you, so please tell me how to evaluate the round, why I should prefer your arg, etc.

2. Collapsing- Please collapse!!!! Don't try to go for everything. i don't care if you do this in the form of voters or not, just tell me where you're winning on my flow. (TLDR: I shouldn't be "signing my ballot" at every argument you made during the round. tell me what's important and then drive it home)

3. Signposting- Please signpost! Roadmaps are great too

4. Everything in FF must be in summary for both first and second FF

5. extend- If its really important, I need to see it in every speech (exception is defense in 1st summary, see below)

things I don't like to see in a round

1. Miscut evidence- you will receive under 25 speaks if the evidence turns out to be faulty

2. No warrants/links- if you have claim then impact without warrants and link you do not in fact have an impact

3. DO NOT ABUSE YOUR TIME

other stuff

1. I don't require defense extension in first summary, only offense

2. I appreciate skipping grand but it has absolutely no effect on speaks/my perception of you/the round in anyway. If both teams agree to skip that's great, but if you think it's important, PLEASE speak up and we will do it

3. I don't mind whether you sit or stand for anything, especially for online rounds

4. Overviews can be nice but if you're going to do it, get into it as early as you can. Also, your overview shouldn't take away from actual clash/responses/ or be a waste of time

Please e-mail me or find me if you have questions!! sofiebehr10@gmail.com or behrse0@sewanee.edu

Sometimes I like to disclose, sometimes I don't. It depends on the tournament rules, as well as the round itself, how much time we have left, etc. If I chose not to disclose for whatever reason or if we don't have time, I'll do my best to provide adequate feedback, but feel free to post round me by email or in person.

Have fun and enjoy yourself!

Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School. I have a BS in Economics from Auburn University and am working on my MS in Economics at Portland State University. This is my fifth year judging. I'm a flow judge. I judge the round based almost purely off of what is left on the flow after final focus. This means that I value clear voters and good line by line very highly.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. Any points made in crossfire must be brought up in a speech for me to weigh it in the round. If debaters are rude during crossfire it will be reflected in their speaker points.

Evidence: If debaters cannot produce evidence in less than a minute, I assume that they do not have the card. I will ask for cards after the round if I am not clear on the intentions of the author or believe that the card was miscut.

I always like a spirited but respectful round. I have a PF background, so high speed in speech does not bother me. I prefer off-time roadmaps to be brief.

Hello!! I'm looking forward to judging this round with you.

My background: I debated for four years at Vestavia doing Public Forum and Congress debate and am now a sophomore Law, Politics, and Society major at Samford.

I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you want to debate but here are just some short preferences and tips that will make the round more enjoyable for all of us:

1. Do NOT be overly aggressive. This is debate, it gets heated, its fun, I get it. But if you are out right rude to your opponent or speak in a manner that doesn't reflect the intellectual and educational atmosphere we are in I will dock your speaker points.
2. I'll keep time but do your best to as well, that just makes you look more professional. There will be a few seconds of grace period but don't steal time.
4. Evidence ethics are cool, but don't waste excessive time calling for cards unless you need it -- if you won't be talking about the evidence/quote/stats/etc. in a speech or cross let's keep it short.

I'm cool with speed but don't start spreading -- I would rather you say a few important points really clear than 50 not very important points super fast.

After I submit the ballot to tab I am more than willing to disclose after the round if it is asked for! As your judge I will do my very best to give clear and precise feedback about the decision I made and what can be improved.

Email me with questions, concerns, speech docs, or for an email chain cundiff.linden@gmail.com

Hello! I’m a varsity PF debater and do I flow rounds. Please make sure that you tell me what to weigh, how to weigh, and why your side should win in your speeches. I will take off speaker points if I hear anything disrespectful/rude/etc. If you don’t tell me how to evaluate the round, I’ll just have to go solely based on the flow. Try to be clear and articulate in your speeches. If you’re speaking faster than I write, and I don’t get it on the flow, I will probably not weigh it unless you bring it up again in round. Have fun and be nice! I’m excited to hear your round :)

This is my first year in coaching debate and judging at tournaments.

During a debate, the things I look for and appreciate include:

-solid arguments that are backed by evidence

-ability to defend an argument during crossfire and in rebuttal

-ability to ask good questions in crossfire

The things that I do not like to see in a debate:

-talking too fast

-talking over an opponent

-yelling

I debated varsity PF for Auburn for two years. I’m currently a senior at Auburn University studying Industrial Design.

I prefer clear, cogent, and coherent argument. If a point is valid, give logical and empirical argument to support it. Don’t spread.

I value the framework and the flow, so if you bring up a point in crossfire (which I don’t flow) bring it up again in a speech. Be nice.

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. I do not have personal experience as a debater and have learned what I know about debate from my students. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand you or follow your speeches, I can't vote on it! I will keep track of time on tabroom but I also encourage you to keep time yourself.

Hi! I have been debating at Vestavia Hills High School for four years now.

Evidence - If the evidence is sketch... I will call for it

Rebuttal - Signpost!!! Tell me exactly what you are doing/responding to

Summary/Final Focus - Weigh!! Signpost PLEASE! Say where you are on the flow

Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire, but if you want to tell me something that happened in crossfire, then say it in the next speech. Be respectful! Do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Yelling and screaming at each other will NOT help you win the round

Keep your own time (prep, speeches)

Have fun! :)

Speed- I do not have preference to the speed, but please don't spread. I would prefer more on articulation than speed.

Speech and Weight-

Before you start your speech, it is preferred to give off time road map.

Make sure to weight at least before the final focus and present your list of voters in final focus.

It would be better to start weight on your rebuttal.

If your opponents drop an argument and you mention, make sure to collaborate the significance of that dropped arguments and weight why you win.

I will vote to a team that had a greater and solid impact.

Time- Make sure to keep time, but I will be keeping time just in case.

The role of my position as a judge is to decide who did the better debating. My ballot is awarded to the team with the best speaking skills, articulation of their arguments throughout the whole round, proper refutation of all their opponent's points, usage of evidence, and comparative argumentation. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless told to do otherwise.

Speed and jargon are a no. Please don't immediately presume I know the intricacies of deep research on the resolution. The point of public forum debate is that you should be able to break down the debate on the resolution for anyone, and convince them why your side is right. Humor goes a long way with me in terms of ethos and speaker points. Being mean or a bully does the opposite.

Be sure to time your own speeches and keep track of prep time. I'll also be keeping time, but there is a speaker point reduction for those who don't do it.

Hello,

I am a Public Forum debator with extensive experience in both lay and tech debate.

Preferences:

I must say I prefer a round with a stronger basis in rhetoric and good argumentation than one in techy spreading and theory. That said, I am completely competent in judging techy or spread debate, I just might roll my eyes at you a little if you do it. It likely will not effect your speaker points though. I will however always favor a team that chooses to debate the round lay style and can win even if their opponents go tech. I strongly believe in the "game" of debate so to speak, and if you can beat them not only argumentatively but with tactics and strategies that make a good debater I appreciate that as well. If it isnt in summary, I dont want it in final focus. Extend your arguments. Don't be rude in cross, but being clever is appreciated. If you're on tabroom checking my paradigms I am assuming your competent enough to know what I am talking about.

Experience:

12th place at NSDA 2018 Nationals

2x TOC Gold Qualifier

2x 5th place state finisher

3x State Qualifier

Tempus Debate

College: Harvard Community College '27

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

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Pref Chain

(1 being pref me and 5 being strike me)

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

Trad Deb8: 1

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

DA: 1

FW: 1

Theory/Topicality: 2

Kritique (Idpol, Word PIK, Performance): 2

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

Counter Plan: 3-4

Phil: 5

LARP: 2-3

Tricks: 5 - I dare you lmao

Spikes: 5

-----

-----

-----

TL;DR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

***Most Online Tournaments***

Yes Add me to the chain zthomas8491@gmail.com

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

-----

-----

-----

***Tempus Debate LD Camp Tournament***

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

-----

-----

-----

Paradigm

Novice PF:

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

https://pfforward.weebly.com/

https://www.learnpublicforum.com/

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

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Other notes for Novices...

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Varsity PF:

Favorite Debate:

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

-----

-----

-----

tech>truth:

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

-----

-----

-----

Clarity>speed:

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

-----

-----

-----

Warranting:

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

-----

-----

-----

WEIGH:

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Off-time Roadmap/Signpost:

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

-----

-----

-----

Time:

You guys are BIG KIDZ so KEEP YOUR OWN TIME

-----

-----

-----

Flex-Prep:

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

-----

-----

-----

Cross:

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

-----

-----

-----

Frontline

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Collapse:

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

-----

-----

-----

Extensions:

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

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Offense>weighing>defense

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

I will not flow any new analysis or evidence in FF

-----

-----

-----

Evidence

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Overviews

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

-----

---

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

---

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

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

-----

-----

-----

BQ:

Ima be straight, math = dumb

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

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

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

Fiat:

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

-----

-----

-----

Framework:

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

T/Theory:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

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

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

- I am down for some frivolous theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Disads:

- Don't read in 2nd rebuttal

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Kritiks:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

K Affs

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

CPs

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Presumption:

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

-----

-----

-----

LD:

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

Some things for LD...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

-----

-----

-----

Speaks:

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

Make me laugh and you’ll get higher speaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 - Offensive to others during the round

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

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

-----

-----

-----

Credit to Sam Goldstone for this...

"A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH"

"ok bud" - Christian Rhoades

Intro: Hi everyone! My name is Ariel (she/her/hers), and I am currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, studying finance & marketing operations with a design minor.

Background: I debated Public Forum for four years at Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, Alabama. I debated on the local and national circuit and qualified to NSDA Nationals and TOC Gold in 2020. I also kinda competed in Congress (but like idk what I was doing).

PF:

General/Fun Overview

1. If you turn when you read a turn, I will give you +0.5 speaks.

2. I like puns and funny catchphrases in speeches, so do what you will with that info.

3. Don't steal prep time pls and thx - also i hate extremely long evidence exchanges. I expect you to run your own prep time if you call for evidence.

4. I vote off crossfire. Just kidding. I will probably be on my phone during cross, so if anything important happens in cross, be sure to reference it in later speeches, so I can flow it.

5. If you fail to present evidence within three mins, I will scratch it from my flow.

6. Tech > Truth

7. Any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop.

8. On a scale of 1-10, I can flow speed of around 7. Spread at your own risk.

Progressive Args

1. My experience with Progressive Args is limited. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory and non-topical kritiks. Run at your own risk. 90% of the time, I will be confused. Do whatever. Go stupid. Go crazy.

2. Please don't run theory unless there is an actual violation. Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Trigger Warning theory are fine I guess.

3. USE TRIGGER WARNINGS. PLEASE if you run any suicide or domestic abuse or anything potentially triggering in case, give us a heads up and warning ahead of time.

Rebuttals

1. Second rebuttal should frontline turns, extend, and weigh case. Start collapsing if you want. It makes the narrative more clear.

2. Weigh and implicate any turns.

3. Quality > Quantity

Summary

1. Defense is sticky. Frontline in rebuttal/1st summary if you want to extend an argument.

2. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE. COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything.

3. weigh. weigh. weigh. start early. I expect weighing in BOTH summary and final focus. Tell me why I prefer your arguments.

4. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

5. I prefer line by line over big picture, but do as you please.

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. If you extend a completely different argument than your partner did in their summary, you have no offense.

3. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact. If there is no impact, I will not vote for it.

4. I enjoy probability weighing.

LD:

um... yea. Treat me like a lay judge :)

Any Questions? Email me OR send me a meme: aszhou@wharton.upenn.edu