Tech > Truth

I personally don't like theory, but I will evaluate it.

If you want your arguments and impacts to be flowed through, make sure it is extended in summary and final focus. I allow sticky defense.

I am pretty lenient when it comes to speaker points, Make sure your speeches are easy to understand(Signpost) and follow a good order. I am fine with speed but will dock points if it seems like the opponents can't understand what you're saying.

Add me to the email chains so I can take a look at the evidence: abhilash0ari@gmail.com.

If you believe any evidence was misconstrued or false, Let me know at the end of the round so I can call for it.

PF for 4 years, coach for 1. IX in speech for 4 years, nationals twice, state once. Currently studying international politics at Georgetown. I am a sad college student.

A few quick facts:

- I do not care for kritiks. Theory is fine, but please keep it topical.

- Please have decent citations with credentials. So long as credentials are mentioned in-round, I will weigh/respect the source. I DO NOT wipe sources off the flow for bad citations, but I will ALWAYS consider well-cited sources over things like "Brown 12."

- Going a bit over time is fine, but I will cut speeches off at 15 seconds over time. You will have 1 sentence to wrap up your thoughts.

- Please signpost well to aid my flows.

- I despise spreading - please explain the RELEVANCE of the cards/blocks/briefs you present in rebuttal.

- Summary is intended to boil the round down to key voters, NOT AS A SECOND REBUTTAL. Keep it organized.

- I do flow cross-ex. Be conscious of what you say and how you conduct yourself.

- Keep in mind who has the burden of proof.

- Be respectful of your opponent - try not to be accusative.

- I do weigh non-quantified or abstract impacts.

Best of luck to all of you!

1. I am generally predisposed to teams that feel like they are attempting to persuade me, the judge, vs. exclusively their opponent. Many debates get too deeply into the weeds and fail to provide some kind of clear, overarching narrative — similarly, individual arguments are too often under warranted, with no analysis, and without a clear resolution of existing clash. Debate, to me, feels the most valuable and enjoyable when the skills demonstrated seem transferable / relevant to real-life argumentation and discourse — this means accurately tagged arguments that are developed throughout the round and rebuttals that show clear engagement with the content of opponent’s arguments. I prefer summaries that are not pseudo-rebuttals and that clearly explicate the narrative of the team while also providing offensively-minded voters and substantive weighing.

2. Evidence / in-round ethics are both extremely important to me. If at any point it becomes clear that a team is mis-representing, mis-labeling or otherwise abusing evidence, there will be a severe reduction in speaker points. I am also open to dropping the team if it seems like it’s given them an unfair competitive advantage. Because of all this, I am generally against paraphrasing unless the paraphrased content absolutely adheres to the content of the original source.

3. In-round civility is extremely important to me. Teams that are overly aggressive in crossfire, steal prep, go well over on time, or take forever when pulling up evidence will have reduced speaker points. Teams that cross over from rudeness into racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc… will be dropped (this includes arguments that contain racist, sexist, etc...warranting)

4. I understand the necessity for speed and heavily truncated argumentation in some rounds but generally have an overwhelming preference for a conversational pace and clear analysis. As such, I dislike the use of debate jargon and overuse of debate community patter (“A couple problems here” “This evidence is really, really clear!” “Recognize -”).

5. I will do my best to vote strictly off the flow but even within that paradigm it’s impossible to remain absolutely divorced from some degree of subjective decision-making over the course of a round. Thus, as with any judge, whether explicitly stated or not, I’m going to be heavily predisposed to the arguments that make coherent sense to me, starting from the constructive. Too many rebuttals and cases feel like ransom notes in which two or three words from thousands of evidence sources have been copy and pasted together to form something borderline incoherent. To put it another way — I’m not against surprising or novel argumentation but if something seems fake, it’ll feel weaker to me in a round. That being said, I want to limit judge intervention as much as possible and will do everything possible to not incorporate things external to what’s been argued in the round.

The best debates I’ve seen always seem to leave both debaters feeling like they’ve had fun. I’m confident that fulfilling these five preferences will lead to a strong round more often than not. Thank you!

Addition: I’m open to Ks and other kinds of experimental debate. I haven’t had a lot of experience judging them and the ones I’ve seen have generally been deeply unconvincing but I’m not against them at all

Public Forum

I would categorize myself as a flay+ judge, but I would much rather see whatever style of debate that you are most comfortable with. I think the most important thing for me is for you to extend the arguments that you want to and tell me where to extend it (signpost or u get dropped). This includes defense on the opponent's case as well. If you don't extend claim, warrant, and impact of turns/case args or drop defense on it, there's a good chance I'm not going to weigh it.

I would also like to tell you guys to chill out. This is a high school activity, so don't be rude in cross, don't freak out if the opponent goes one second over in prep or case, and don't take things too seriously/personally.

Theory/Ks

A note on theory: Unless the opponent actually does something egregious, don't run it. This DOES NOT include disclosure on the wiki. In my view, theory is often a way to cop an easy win without debating. Don't confuse this with Ks though, because Ks are super fun and underused in PF.

Evidence Exchange and Standards

If you take more than two minutes to send a card or if you call for a card that is obviously true, I'm going to detract speaker points. Also, please don't try to use bad evidence. It's unethical and is one of the main things that makes debate toxic. With that being said, I am probably not going to look into your evidence unless the opponent makes it clear that I should do so unless it's an absolutely outrageous claim. 

Disclosure

I'll try to ask if you guys want me to disclose but I might forget. If you want me to disclose and I forget then remind me. I will also try to give feedback at the end. I encourage you to ask questions and treat each round as a learning experience.

Ways to Get High Speaks

The way I do speaks is I start at 30 and dock throughout the round, so even if you're not outstanding, you can still get high speaks by not being absolutely booty. I'll try to give as high speaks as I can (within reason). 

-

30 - Exceptional speaker, ~TOC level

29 - Good

28 - Average

27 - Could use some work

-

1. Be coherent and signpost properly. Don't just spit off fifteen card names and call it a day.

2. Have good cross. A good cross is one of the best ways to display your complete knowledge of a topic and is one of the more useful real-life skills to have.

3. Weigh. I'm hesitant to put this in the speaker points section because it's more of a flow thing, but weighing is important for each speaker to do thoroughly.

4. Don't be a novice (I'm KIDDING stop cryinggggg lmao)

5. Read all of my paradigm ?!?!

Have fun and debate well!

Congress

I debated Congress in high school, so I would like to think I'm at least somewhat knowledgeable in the category. With that being said, I didn't do nearly as much of it as I did PF, so here's some of my preferences.

Actually Debate

I get really annoyed when people in congress don't engage and just read off prewritten speeches. That's not how it works - you need to give extemp speeches attacking and defending your respective sides.

Keep Track of Precedence and Recency

I'm super bad at this, so keep each other accountable.

No Softball Questions

Softball questions completely destroy the purpose of debate. Not only will it hurt your speaker points, but it also is part of the reason congress is so boring at lower levels.

Don't Take It So Seriously

For some reason, I always feel like Congress kids are so toxic for no reason. Have fun with it and make sure that other people have fun too

That's basically it. Do your best!

Lan Do

P.S. If you read this, follow my Spotify @lan_do1 and I'll give you higher speaks ?!?! (https://open.spotify.com/user/lan_do?si=a403d6ac370a4d6f)

Don't forget to flow through arguments.

K's are fine by me.

If you use framework, use it throughout the debate to help weigh arguments or else just drop it before you begin the round if you can't.

Stay on topic and don't pursue meaningless arguments in cross. Use your time wisely.

Blake '21, UChicago '25

I did PF on the national circuit for 3 years, and now am an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minneapolis.

Tl;dr

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- Please read paraphrasing theory in rounds where the opponents are paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is an awful practice, evidence is VERY important to me, and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs before each speech in which cards will be read.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, Ellie Singer, and Shane Stafford.

- Please add both jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the email chain.

- Feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General Paradigm

Rules

I will time speeches and prep, though you are encouraged to do the same. I will enforce excessive and flagrant intentional violations of speech time rules with the ballot, if necessary. In most cases, this is not needed recourse, and I will simply stop flowing once the time has elapsed.

Speeches

Roadmaps: In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are more than 2 sheets, then I will ask for a roadmap.

The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense. Any arguments dropped by the second rebuttal are considered dropped in the round.

The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or in any way going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me. See below for a caveat.

Sticky Defense: In almost all scenarios, defense is not sticky. It is completely incoherent to me that the first summary does not need to extend defense on contentions that the second summary might go for. However, the sole exception to this will be if a team does not frontline to any arguments on a contention in the second rebuttal. The first summary can consider that contention kicked. This is already pretty solidified as a norm, and allows second speaking teams to kick arguments without literally saying “there is no offense on Contention X.” An extension of this contention, that was clearly kicked in second rebuttal, by the second summary will allow the first final to extend defense from the first rebuttal on that contention specifically.

Speed: I am comfortable with all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak at 400+ WPM, and I can understand every word. Likewise, I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear. I will say clear if I can’t follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). If you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

Speech docs: Please send speech docs with cut cards. This vastly decreases the amount of wasted time in rounds sending various individual cards at different times.

Weighing: The team that wins the weighing debate is nearly always winning the round. I start every RFD with an evaluation of the weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions without making the round a total mess. I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

Collapse: Please collapse. I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

Abusive Delinks: I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself to get out of turn offense. This does not mean you cannot bite defense read, or make new frontline responses to turns, rather it means you cannot overtly contradict your initial arguments with a piece of defense your opponents did not read to get out of offense they read. This applies in situations as clear cut as the aff saying X, the neg responding with X is actually bad, and the aff responds with “not X.” This almost never happens, but is astonishingly abusive when it is attempted.

Framework: If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it, or make arguments as to why they get responses later in the round. I don't know where I stand on this technically yet, but this is where I am leaning now. In general, if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, I think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

Advocacies/T: In general, I will evaluate the flow without prejudice on what ground the aff or neg claims to have. Because the neg doesn't get a counter plan in PF, the aff advocacy does not block the neg out of ground. Both the aff and neg can make arguments about what the aff would most likely look at, and should garner advantages and disadvantages based off of those interpretations. I will evaluate whose is more likely to be correct and go from there. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages unless it is argued that troop deployment is not a feasible implementation of the aff. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works.

Safety issues: I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

Housekeeping: I take the important parts of the debate incredibly seriously, but there are aspects that I find frivolously pretentious. Be nice and respectful, but keep it somewhat light and casual if you can! Debate is supposed to be at least somewhat fun, so lets treat it as such. I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence

Disclaimer: I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. This section is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Evidence is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an argument as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point.

Bottom line: Evidence is the backbone of the activity. I do not fancy fast paced lying as a debate format. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will certainly call for cards if docs are not already sent. Evidence quality is exceedingly important, and I will have no qualms dropping teams for awful evidence. This applies regardless of if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it.

Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Luckily, it seems on the decline! Regardless, it is bad for the quality of debate, it is bad for all of its educational benefits, and it ruins fairness. Please cut cards, it is not difficult to learn. If you insist on making me upset and paraphrasing, keep the following in mind:

1. You must have a cut card that you paraphrased from. It is an NSDA rule now.

2. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you can’t quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

3. Paraphrasing does not let you off the hook for not reading a warrant. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank.

4. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you can’t find it when asked and you make the argument to "just evaluate as an analytic," I will also give an L25. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

5. Don’t be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 28.5 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

Producing evidence: If reading the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence. If you can’t produce a card upon being asked for it within reasonable time frame given the network or technical context, your speaks will tank.

Evidence Preference: Even if not a full shell, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me.

Author Cites: This is yet another thing I should not need to put in my paradigm. You need to cite the author you are reading in speech for it to be counted as evidence as opposed to an analytic. If you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of evidence, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. It is blatant plagiarism and extremely unethical. In an educational activity, this should be exceedingly obvious.

Progressive Paradigm

Debate is good: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative in the best possible way. Arguments that say debate is bad and should be destroyed entirely (often this is the conclusion of non-topical pessimistic arguments, killjoy, etc) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. This does not make them unwinnable, but probably not strategic to read.

Disclaimer: I'm receptive to all arguments, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting very low quality recently. I worry about the long-term impact about some of these in the activity. I beg of you, think about the model you are advocating for, and think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it. The impact you can leave on the activity could be positive or negative and will outlast your time as a debater.

Theory

CI/Reasonability: I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this section. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate the flow normally.

RVIs: I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this is an RVI on an IVI.

IVIs: These are really bad for debate. If there is a rules claim to be made, make it a theory shell. If there is a safety issue, then stop the round. Almost all of the time, IVIs are vague whines spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop. My threshold for responses to these is near zero.

Frivolity: I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. This does include spikes and tricks. I don't like them, please don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round. I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments. It has become more common these days to read WPM interpretations (i.e. cannot be more than 250 WPM). I think these are pretty stupid, to be entirely honest. It is not clear to me why disclosure doesn't solve or why being a more efficient speaker doesn't solve. Not saying I wouldn't vote for it in the right round, but its probably more an uphill battle in front of me than most.

Introduction: Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as there’s some offense on the shell. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a paraphrasing bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

Disclosure is good: Disclosure is good, but how you disclose matters. These days I prefer open source disclosure, where tags, cites, and highlights are all included. "Open source" with no highlights or tags, where teams put up walls of unformatted text and expect people to do precisely anything with it, is a huge pet peeve of mine and interps that punish teams that do this will be received favorably. My predisposition towards disclosure is slightly less severe than mine towards paraphrasing, but my decisions cannot help but to be impacted by them. It is not impossible, but probably not easy, to win disclosure bad in front of me. Ideally, you would just disclose. I have decided the activity should probably start moving in the direction of disclosing rebuttal evidence as well, so do with that what you may. I will listen to reasons why that is bad, though I struggle to see the conceptual difference between a link turn and a case link from a disclosure perspective.

Trigger warnings: I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that don’t need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You’ll find Elizabeth Terveen’s paradigm has a good section on this that I generally agree on. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically. Obviously, egregiously graphic descriptions are an exception to this general belief, but they are almost never run in PF. The mention of something is not a good enough reason for a trigger warning.

Kritiks

General disposition: I am somewhat comfortable evaluating most kritikal arguments, although I’m not as experienced with them as I am with others. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well. I am quite comfortable with capitalism, security, and fem IR.

Disclaimer: Blake 2021 made me think about this part of my paradigm a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. The proliferation of identity, pomo inspired kritiks that vaguely ask the judge to vote for a team based on an identity and nothing else is not good. Moreover, methods that advocate collapsing the activity are unlikely to be well received. In any case, please articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing to improve the activity. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

“Pre-fiat”: No one thinks fiat is real, so let’s be more specific about how we label arguments and discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument.’

Discourse: I am pretty skeptical that discourse shapes reality. If you go for this, you best have excellent evidence and good explanations.

Speaks

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy because I never give speaks that high almost ever. I will not give a 30, there are no perfect debaters.

Parent judge with 4 years of experience.

Please slow the pace of your speech so it is easier to follow.

If you have any post-round questions:

andreahagape@gmail.com

What to expect from me:

I debated for 4 years on the Eagan High School debate team. I will be flowing the round, so I will be a bit more of a tech judge. Regardless of how I personally feel about the strength of an argument, I will still evaluate it based on how well it's run within the context of the round. I am okay with speed, as long as it doesn't interfere with the clarity of your speaking. I will vote for whoever has the most offense left standing at the end of the round. I will disclose at the end of the round.

How to win my vote (Road to the Ballot):

1. Weighing

In summary I expect clear weighing mechanisms, and when I say weighing mechanisms I mean you actually have to give a comparative analysis between your impacts and the impacts of your opponents. You can't just say "we outweigh on severity", you need to say "we outweigh on severity because we impact to death by war and our opponents impact to a few million dollars lost". If you give me weighing mechanisms like these I will evaluate your impacts first and then it simply becomes an issue of extending your links into those impacts.

2. Extensions

I will not extend your arguments for you. In order to get me to buy your argument at the end of the round, the entirety of your argument should be extended from Sum all the way to FF. This consists of your claim, warrant, and impact. You need both warrant and impact extensions for me to guarantee an evaluation of your argument. If you are missing any of these, the only way that I will still buy your argument is if your opponents never call you out on forgetting to extend.

Additional note: If you didn't talk about it in Sum but bring it up again in FF, I will not consider your argument. Sum is your most important speech in the round where you go over everything that you feel is relevant, so if it isn't mentioned there it shouldn't be mentioned at all later.

3. Frontlining

1st Speaking Team: I don't expect you to preempt your opponents responses to your case in Rebuttal, so Frontlining should take place in Summary.

2nd Speaking Team: I expect Frontlining in your Rebuttal, and if I don't get it in Rebuttal I won't flow it in Sum. You already know what your opponents have to say against your case by Rebuttal so take the time to defend yourself. Doing that in 2nd Sum is extremely unfair to your opponents because they can only begin to respond during FF and that shouldn't be what FF is for.

Both Teams: I won't accept last minute Frontlining that happens in FF.

4. New Evidence/Arguments

Summary: I am okay with new evidence in Sum as long as it is in support of a preexisting argument. No new arguments in Sum because Sum should be a condensing of the round. The only exception to this is if you are the 1st speaking team and are frontlining in Sum.

Final Focus: No new evidence or arguments should be made in FF. If you do this I will not regard the argument regardless of whether or not your opponent calls you out for it.

5. Signposting

Make sure to signpost and tell me where you are on the flow so it'll be easier for me to follow along. The easier it is for me to understand you, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

6. Etiquette

I don't appreciate overly aggressive speakers. You can condescend your opponents and interrupt them all you want, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger. I also don't appreciate it when people dance around questions in Cross. Your inability to answer questions about your arguments will only reflect poorly on you. Just answer the question and move on.

7. Summary

Summary is not a 2nd rebuttal. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL. SUMMARY IS NOT A 2ND REBUTTAL!!!!!!!! If you start your summary on your opponents case, my brain will start shutting down. Summary is supposed to be about why you have won the round, and proving your opponents wrong isn't the same as proving yourself right. Start your summary on what you are winning on, extend your case properly, and take the time to do weighing. Extending your partners responses from rebuttal is secondary to that (Note: This doesn't mean that you shouldn't also do this).

-----

Speaker Point Breakdown

I will be giving everyone a 28 with 3 exceptions:

1. You are so well spoken that you get a 30

2. You display that you aren't just a bad debater, but a bad person. In that case you will be getting a 25.

3. Idk I'm bored if you tell me something cool I'll give you and extra .5 speakers points because why not.

Credit to Simon Koch for the meme so they can't get mad at me for stealing :)

Firstly, I learned most about debate from my coach Bryce Piotrowski. His opinions have shaped much of what I believe about debate and his paradigm can be found here.

I would like to mention that I have not judged since the Blake tournament in 2023. With that being said, I am still familiar with typical strategy. The main change is that I will not be able to handle the speed the same way as I could before. I am not suggesting that you need to go less than 200WPM. However, I would discourage too much emphasis on speed because it may not deliver the result you want. I am starting to appreciate depth of arguments over reading as many arguments as you can.

Add me to the chain kentandrew957@gmail.com

Tech> truth if you need to contact me for any accommodations(kentandrew957@gmail.com)

I will drop unethical evidence ethics. This is one of my biggest pet peeves are teams that read paraphrased evidence and think it's fine, then they either can't send a card or they will send me a link which I don't want to read. Just read cut evidence please!!

Speed:

I am looking for somewhere between 200-250 WPM. As the section above indicates I would prefer that speed is not the focus of your strategy. I find that with depth of arguments it allows for the most education to be gained from the round. Reading a bunch of squirrelly arguments and waiting for opponents to drop it is not the strategy for me.

Rebuttal:

For second rebuttal please please please front line offensive arguments at least. I would prefer collapsing. Moreover, I would prefer if you do not read an entire offensive overview in your second or first rebuttal that is a contention long because it is not strategic and will make me sad.

Summary and final focus:

They should mirror each other. Anything that is extended from summary is expected to be in final focus. Also, please oh god please weigh in these speeches. Preferably in both of them because it makes my job as the judge much much easier.

Speaker points:

My average will probably for most rounds be 29. I think that speaker points are honestly quite subjective and stupid. However, the more strategic your choices you make throughout the round the higher or lower it will go.

Theory/ Progressive arguments

I don't have that much experience with it at all. If you plan on running something that is not topical you should plan on not doing that.

I will not evaluate trix or any frivolous theory. I.E. I want the violation to actually be legitimate enough for me to actually want to vote off of. This would include disclosure(more info below) and paraphrase would def recommend to check back against abusive evidence ethics.

Along with this I would encourage you to to disclose your cases on either the Wiki or email to your opponents. The reason why I enjoy it is because it seems as though the norm of PF is to run wack cases and have the opponents not have blocks to it. I think just overall disclosure makes for better debates and more educational ones.

Miscellaneous:

Have fun. You can wear whatever I literally don't care. I will give you 20's and L for any arguments that are exclusive to anyone in the round or outside of it.

I think that flex prep is pretty groovy, so if everyone is OK with this than lets do it.

This is my fourth year judging. My judging is based on quality and accuracy. Students should be respectful and argue in a way that demonstrates this. I enter each debate with no opinion on the subject. It is up to you to convince me to side with your argument. 

These are the criteria that I typically judge:

clarity of case

clearly stated opening argument

use of facts and examples in the correct order - source then evidence

overall clarity of presented argument

crossfire - well constructed questions and answers

Background: Debated at Champlin Park High School from 2016-2020
Started in JV PF, last two years in Varsity LD. Went to 2019 Nationals in LD

Preferences: Enjoy quality over quantity. Stickler for logical warrants. Love historical context as counter arguments.

*paradigm finessed from Ryan Zhu*

- PF debater from Edina JW, have competed nationally and locally.

If you wish to have any accommodations to make the debate safer/better or have any extra questions after reading the paradigm, contact me on Facebook Messenger or at evanjiang943@gmail.com

put me on the email chain if there is one: (email above)

tl:dr - tech > truth judge - tabula rasa. I'll flow the entire round, debate how you want - line by line/big picture idc. Everything in FF should be in summary.

- ay have fun! crack jokes - itll make the whole debate more fun and enjoyable

- i'll disclose the decision - if you think i messed up, roast me all you want, post round me, ask questions, idrc but don't be a dick.

speed: i can keep up and flow anywhere up to 300wpm. send a speech doc to me if you're gonna spread and make sure you aren't excluding your opponents.

weighing: pls pls weigh! weighing is the easiest way to win the round and structures how i view the debate. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

second rebuttal: second rebuttal should frontline at the least turns, but prolly defense also. split however you want (ie 2/2 or 3/1).

first summary: unfrontlined defense is sticky for first summary and can go from rebuttal to final focus. if it is frontlined, still need to extend it. turns should always be in summary.

theory: i'm good with most theory arguments as long as there is a real violation, like the other team not reading a content warning for a potentially triggering argument. i'm not gonna vote on friv theory (shoe theory, disclosure, paraphrase) tbh. paragraph theory is fine if you don't know how to write the full shell.

Ks: these are prolly fine if you want to run the argument, but slow down and explain it rly well. i won't know the lit base but I'll listen to the arg and know how they work.

tricks: no.

speaks: Average ~ 28.5 and go up/down the 0.1 scale from that. strategic decisions and collapsing earn a bump. i'm not gonna evaluate 30s theory tho.

evidence: cut cards are a must - whether you read those cut cards verbatim or paraphrase them is up to you. If anyone calls for ev, pls be able to give them the card promptly.

don't do these:

If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), you will get the L and lowest possible speaks. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

offensive overviews: don't pull out a new contention in rebuttal, i'm not going to vote for an unrelated DA out of second rebuttal, and i don't think that reading a new contention level arg in first rebuttal is strategic.

dumping unwarranted args: don't read as many arguments as you can if it means sacrificing the warranting and explanation. that being said, i'm fine with any crazy arguments as long as there are warrants and implications. quality > quantity plz.

- I’m a parent judge, speak slow and respectfully

- No theory

- Give logical examples, if it doesn’t make sense, I’m not voting for it

- Please weigh, even if you don’t use magnitude, scope, or etc, at least tell me why your argument will win the round of impact is all the round boils down to

- I am an active cryptocurrency investor and familiar with various crypto exchanges, has good technical knowledge about this topic

- Cards need to be reliable, there is bias in everything but don’t use super biased sources

- Well warranted analytics > cards that don’t make sense

Hello, I am a fifth year parent judge with lots of experience on the MN local circuit. Here are the main things I care about. Outside of these, feel free to use your creativity and discretion to sway me towards your arguments.

• Mind your speed - this is not a speed reading competition. It is hard to keep up with your ideas if all my focus is spent trying to keep up with the words. Moreover, if I don’t understand what you say, it’s hard to give you points!
• Truth over tech. I value well thought-out analytics equally as much as empirics.
• Keep it respectful during round. Disrespecting the other team or mean behavior will not be tolerated.
• I take notes throughout the round, including cross. So don’t worry if I’m scribbling away when you are speaking. I’m listening.
• Regardless of the validity or logic of an argument/contention (or lack thereof), I will buy it if the other side does not challenge it.
• I do not buy any theories, Ks, or any sort of technical tricks used in round. I expect you to debate the resolution.

Finally, while impact is obviously important, I am almost never swayed by the prospect of all of us dying in 2030 because of global warming, nor do I expect us all to die of nuclear strike at the drop of a hat. Nuanced arguments are more valuable as they are more real-world.

Good luck, and feel free to ask me for feedback at the end of the round if you want it :)

About Me:

I am a four-year PF debater and the captain of the Eagan PF team. I'm from South Korea (don't speak a lick of the language) and work at Starbucks, so if I see you drinking a Frappuccino, I will be upset (no speaker points or anything will be redacted). Add me to whatever we're using to share cards: simonkoch31@gmail.com

If you're a PF Novice:

-Be a good person

-Go fast, but be clear

-Offtime roadmaps are welcome but not required

-Explain why something happens

-Weigh weigh weigh

-Narrow things down as the round goes on

-Ignore the rest unless you want some fun reading material