Tabroom.com

The Debate Group PF Holiday Invitational

2021 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

waheed ahmad Hire None

Shabbir Bohri Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:19 PM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Nicholas Budny Hire

Nathan Chu Hire 8 rounds

Jeremiah B. Cohn Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 5:01 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Jeremiah!

Please add me to the chain: cohn.jeremiah@gmail.com.

Postround me/ask questions if you want

+.2 speak for good Bladee references

Experience

4 years of HS debate for Summit Highschool in NJ, Graduated 2022

4 years PF, 8 gold bids, and 4 silvers with 4 different partners, mainly ran substance & theory

1 year LD, reached 3 bid rounds ran stock/impact turns, theory/friv theory, tricks, Marx and Agonism, contracts, and a couple of NIB NCs

2 years of College Policy at Binghamton University, I'm a 2N, PoMo, Impact turns, theory. Qualified to NDT & cleared at CEDA twice.

Harrison RR (4/6/24)

I do not know anything about the LD topic

TLDR:

I will eval anything -- dogmatism is cringe & I hated losing cuz I read the wrong thing and the judge refused to evaluate -- be good at what you do and have a good time (morally abhorrent arguments are the obvious exception)

open cross & flex prep are fine

Clash Debates: I am probably 40/60 in clash debates -- I think T is a beautifully elegant technical argument & K teams often get bogged down in the LBL battle instead of winning the top-level stuff. My standards for T teams have also increased, your blocks should be contextual to the debate & the best 2NRs on T are not only technically proficient but also very persuasive.

The aff: win impact turns, top-level framing, or debate is bad.

The neg: win truth testing, limits, or good TVAs

That being said I love T vs policy affs.

Defaults: CIs, no RVI, presume neg in LD/Policy, 1st speaker in PF

Auto L for intentionally x-ist arguments.

I reserve the right to stop the round for safety stuff (ie misgendering)

One Winner / One Loser

Gut-check yourself, if you're debating a novice try to make the round accessible

clarity > speed, auditory processing disorder = slurred words are incoherent to me

My wiki from HS to get an idea of what I read: https://opencaselist.com/hsld21/Summit/JeCo

I read way more K now in college but my heart wishes I could still read NIBs

I am also cool w/ policy style debate but I will probably just enjoy it less

I never did trad LD

Speaks are fake and shouldn't be a tie-breaker -- why arent we using Opp W% like every other competitive activity?

I love a good case debate :)

Will eval "vote after x speech" but it requires me evaluating the rest of the round

Skep: I keep judging rounds w/ this super generic skep NC, I find it really boring, do with this information as you please. I enjoy paradoxes & random NIBs much more. Also, Skep vs non-pomo K affs probably caps ur speaks but is not an unwinnable position.

Policy

All the LD stuff applies here I could totally see myself voting for tricks in a policy round and would probably find it really funny

I debate policy in college

Good case debate >> lots of off. I think case debate wins rounds.

I'm also a sucker for good impact turns (spark, cap good, dedev etc)

Reasonability makes way more sense in this activity, I love theory though so if you have a good abuse story go for it.

probability weighing: unwarranted weighing will cap your speaks I don't have any idea of what is probable until technical concessions are made.

I debated this for 4 years of HS, but I pay 0 attention to the PF meta now

Theory was the a-strat when I could get away with it in PF

Warrant comparison and weighing r super important

TERMINAL IMPACTS PLEASE

Yes silly extinction scenarios but also yes warrants :)

I will tank your speaks for badly warranted % weighing. I have no idea what is probable or not. I care what is won in round.

1st Summary doesn't need to extend conceded defense, but ff probably should

My favorite PF arguments were tricky overviews that somehow framed out the opps offense or triggered presumption, if you do something like this well you will love your speaks.

Sreyaash Das Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 11:08 AM EDT

Northview '21

University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign '25

Debated LD in high school for 3 years and coached for 1 year, 10 career bids, cleared at TOC in 2020 and 2021

I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions

Doc sharing is good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

I prefer using Speech Drop for docs, its easier.

Email: sreyaash.das@gmail.com

Some quick notes and preferences:

1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.

2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments

3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.

4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.

5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.

6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing affect your arguments. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience; I wouldn’t have joined circuit LD if I hadn’t faced different progressive arguments at locals. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.

7) "If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.

9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.

Prefs Overview

Note: Just because certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this

Policy/Larp -2

Kritiks - 2

Theory - 1

Phil -3

Tricks -2

I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation

Policy/Larp:

Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics

Be smart and do link analysis

Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho

Zero risk is a thing

Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence

Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards

1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple

2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse

Don't forget to kick out of things

Theory

Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis

Standard weighing is dead - plz do it

Paragraph theory is fine

Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed

Terminal D on a shell is a thing even under competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.

Send interps/counter interps plz

Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them

Kritiks:

Dont be a doc bot the entire time

Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power

Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it

Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power

K Affs/T:

These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model

Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity

Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T

Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T

No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides

Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)

Philosophy:

Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds

I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required

I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense

Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more

Tricks:

Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms

If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx

Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow

Slow down on blips - flowability is key

Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.

Traditional:

I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.

Substance > V/VC debate

Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2

I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.

Ezra Davidson Hire

Lars Deutz Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:21 PM CDT

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal

PF Summary/Final Focus

Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
Extend and weigh any argument you go for
Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded

Theory

Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense

Other non-standard arguments in PF

I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate

Post-Round Info

I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

Ishan Dubey Hire

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:16 AM EDT

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com .

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Kayla L Garza Hire

Mary Ge Hire

Nathan Gong Hire 8 rounds

Hayden Harper Hire

Andrew Hentges Hire

Last changed on Sat February 5, 2022 at 4:34 AM CDT

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.

Currently an assistant coach at Lakeville High School. I competed for them for 4 years and most competed in public forum on the national and local circuit.

Add me to the chain kentandrew957@gmail.com

Update for the Golden Desert Tournament this weekend:

I would encourage the debaters to send full constructive and rebuttal documents because of the biggest waste of time I have found in pf comes from calling for evidence. This makes the round much more efficient and overall a better use of the debate space then waiting for evidence that could have been all sent at once. Moreover, I think that the rounds in which include full documents of shared evidence allows for more clash and more educational debates in general.

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

** As long as national circuit tournaments continue to be online I expect that debaters are sending me at MINIMUM their constructives, but if you send all speech docs throughout the round that's completely acceptable too.

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 can handle basically anything. If you plan on spreading just don't. However, if this is your only strategy then anything over 250 wpm send me your doc.

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 probs 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.

K's I think are really interesting to listen to, however, my experience with these arguments are very limited and don't have a ton of knowledge. This means that the more philo the arg is, the more likely I'm not going to know what is going on. As long as you explain the argument slowly, I should be fine.

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.

Leon Huang Hire 8 rounds

John Johnson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 9:18 AM EDT

For Stanford:

Everything in LD paradigm applies to PF. You can spread and I don’t care what you read. Send all speech docs beforre your speech with the cards your reading to my email below, if we have to do some weird calling card stuff I’m prolly gonna doc points bc it just takes way too long. Ideally you don’t paraphrase, won’t hack straight against if you do, but may lower speaks, so just read cut cards.

Email:sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Hey, I'm sunay (he/him). I did LD at Montville Highschool for 4 years. Got a bid in LD my senior year and a few bid rounds.

It's been like 6 months since I have actively thought about debate. This means that you should probably go like 60-70% of your max speed in rebuttals (I have always been a bad at flowing either way) and always err on the side of over-explanation, especially for more dense debates. There are probably things I have forgot and need time to think about.

Shorter version:

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest):

1 - Policy/theory

2 - K (security, cap, grove)

3 - tricks

4- phil

5 - pomo, performance

Defaults:

Theory - Dtd, C/I, no rvis

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

yes 1ar theory

extinction ows

Will probably better fairly generous with speaks but generally my metric will be to start at a 29 and go up or down depending on strategy etc..

*As a general note, I don't care what you read and will vote on literally anything as long as its not racist, sexist, etc.., but things on the lower side of my pref list mean that I have less experience with them/will have a harder time evaluating more higher levels of those debates and will probably need you to go slower/over explain.

Long Version:

tech > truth

Policy- favorite style of debate and debated this the most. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate as opposed to generic impacts. Impact calc in the back half of the round is super important, 2nr/2ar needs the comparison otherwise my ballot becomes much harder to make. Also don't forget ev comparision since i'm unlikely to do the work there if you do not do it for me.

Theory - Dont care if its friv. Go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, esp if its analytic, since if u go full speed through like 3 shells good chance im gonna miss stuff. Disclosure good, but if you use it to abuse novices speaks will probably be lower. Good standard comparison and clear abuse stories make these rounds easier to judge.

Tricks - Will vote on anything as long as it has some type of warrant. Won't be too happy with ev after x speech args but like if its conceded and extended with a warrant I'll vote on it. Generally, if you want to read em - delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 28. *Fair note here that just because I will vote for them does not mean I am gonna be the best at evaluating a Nailbomb AC or something of that sort.

Phil - Im not well read on a lot of type of phil. My knowledge on most lit bases is fairly rudimentary, which means for more niche arguments I'm unlikely to know it. I also was on the util side most of the time in these debates, meaning that however hard I try to be tab those biases will probably sway me in close debates. With all that being said, if u wanna read it go ahead, although im probably not the best to evaluate these debates. If you do go for it j make sure to explain it coherently and not just use a bunch of buzz words. This means that you probably shouldn't go max speed when explaining your syllogism and be blippy when extending random blips at the top of fw. I also really find permis/presumption debates to be pretty tedious, so if your nc/ac is just a bunch of permis/presumption triggers im probably also not the guy for you. This also means if skep is your strat im probably not the person to pref.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords,. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks. Make sure to have turn cases or alt solves stuff in there too. Also pomo makes me confused, so just be sure to explain it, im not gonna be able to vote off weird buzzwords i dont understand no matter how tab i try to be.

K affs/performance - I like K affs that have a clear advocacy that actually does something (non t/performance affs are fine but the threshold for either explanation of what the aff does/justifying the impact turn to T will be much higher). If you have some vague advocacy that is basically non T and super shifty, but act like its T in 1ac cx, I am going to be much more receptive to T args compared to if the aff was just non-T and went hard for the impact turn. This also means the overview to the 1ar should slow down and give a explanation of the affs theory of power, what the aff does, and why I should vote aff. If im left confused as to what the aff actually does by the end of the round, the presumption push the neg is going to make will be much more persuasive. Basically, make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, be ready for the impact turn debate, and give a clear explain as to what the aff does.

There is probably a bunch of stuff im missing just because i dont want this paradigm to be too long, so if you have a specific question just ask it before the round.

neel kanamangala Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:02 AM CDT

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

Matthew Koretsky Hire

Jenna Lea Hire

Kevin Li Hire

Ethan Liu Hire 8 rounds

Ian Mackey-Piccolo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 1:36 PM EDT

debate.ianmackeypiccolo@gmail.com

Your opponents can time your prep, tag team cx is fine, so is flex prep.

Losing to k affs or process counterplans never traumatized me and I have no opinions about debate that need to be enforced on high schoolers.I'll flow and do my best to vote on "tech". I find basically all arguments charming when they're done well.

When arguments get dropped I think that means I should be as credulous of what was claimed as possible. This means I won't go rogue reading evidence for uncontested claims. Even when claims are contested, I try to based how I read evidence in how that evidence was debated.

In clash debates, I care a lot more about external impacts than the goodness of preserving fairness intrinsically. You can win with fairness alone by winning that debate doesn't have external impacts ("no subject formation"). I often vote for K teams when I think the fw team has mitigated, but not won terminal defense, against their external subject formation thing. I'll vote for FW teams more if they start making "low risk = no risk" type args. Something like "beneath a certain level of probability it becomes just as likely debate has opposite unforeseeable consequences for subjectivity".

Ethics stuff: bad for ad homs against other debates, bad for ad homs against random debate authors that don't try to be content relevant ("Pinker was friends with Epstein so no food wars defense"...), bad for pearl clutching about wipeout and death good, reluctantly good for theory about using the wrong gender pronouns for people (I don't want to encourage bad faith debaters to try and get cheap wins, but it seems good for people to care more than they do about not misgendering people).

I don't have a consistent methodology for how to make decisions when intervention is required to vote for either team. I might read evidence, decide based on my personal opinions, or try to extrapolate more arguments based on sentence fragments I have on my flow. Hopefully it doesn't come to this!

Krish Mawalkar Hire

Last changed on Sat February 19, 2022 at 8:20 AM EDT

Harvard Judging Update: I am very familiar with the PF feb topic

I have competed in PF and help write the Debatetrack brief and run Public Forum Debate Academy on YouTube.

Add me to the email chain if there is one (I'll provide my email at the beginning of a round). I like speech docs and can handle up to ~200 wpm.

I enjoy debates where people incorporate some logic into the round. You can have as many arguments at the beginning of the round, just make sure there is time to explain each one in-depth (examples and a detailed impact are helpful). At the end of the round I’m likely to consider voting in one to three places, so you should condense your arguments as the round progresses (especially in summary speech for those in Public Forum). Additionally, having a narrative/story alongside your contentions is helpful and can aid in getting high speaker points.

While I don't need off-time roadmaps/order of your speech, I am happy to accept them (so long as they are brief). Regardless of that, please tell me where you are starting, whether that is stated in the roadmap or at the beginning of your speech.

Do not be aggressive in cross or speeches, I value respect, and continually interrupting the other side in the crossfire almost always is not good for your ballot. Smugness, head shaking, and smirking/laughing at your opponents will lose you speaker points.

For evidence, I like to have dates and author's last name in accordance with NSDA guidelines. Ideally, you should qualify your sources/authors and let me know what type of study or article the evidence is. After the first mention of the evidence, you can refer to the evidence as the author's last name.

In close rounds, I want to be persuaded and I may just listen to both Final Focus/LD Neg Rebuttal & Aff Rebuttal speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

If you put in believable and effective weighing mechanisms, then I will almost certainly vote for you if there is no other clear-cut comparative analysis. If there are multiple weighing analyses from both sides, I vote for the most compelling (best explained, most realistic) weighing. You can also refute the weighing and I am thus less likely to vote off that weighing unless it is defended.

In particular, I find the truest arguments to be the best place to vote. Thus, discussion of probability is usually more important than the scope or magnitude of an issue. This is not to say scope is unimportant, I am willing to default to the believability of an argument before I consider how many people are impacted.

If there's no weighing, I generally vote for the argument that has been defended the most. In Public Forum, I am looking for arguments to be extended in Summary and Final Focus if they want to be considered

As for time, I will let each team finish up a sentence/concept but f a new response is made overtime, I will not consider it.

In crossfire, I appreciate two things. First, logical questions are appreciated. Second, evidence indicts are also good, although they can be a tad tougher to execute.

At the end of the day, while I do flow, I am more lay than most teams recognize. Great rounds for me include the NSDA National and State finals because they incorporate logic and analytics with solid evidence. I respect a mature, calm, and logical team.

Theory - I don't think I am qualified to vote for a full theory shell but if the opponents have bad evidence ethics I am open to theory. Paraphrasing theory is ok as well, just don't make the shell too technical

Kritiks - really not familiar to these.

Adam Mimou Hire 8 rounds

Robert William Missell Hire

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:48 AM EDT

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years now. I do college policy now. I'm “tech” (tabula rasa, will vote for pretty much any argument, won't do any work for you, etc etc)

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

Bergen YS is peak

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

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or racist pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on UNSC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

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

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need to You need to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

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

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going too new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

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

Progressive Args

Ks:

I'm a K debater myself now, I read Beller, SO I'm 100% cool with you running a K. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to. My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it)

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

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

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

Repeatedly cut your opponents off
Be rude to anyone in the round
Taking super long to pull up ev
Extending through ink
Not signposting
Calling everything dropped when it's not
Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

Throw in a Taylor Swift or Pusha T reference
Having fun with it
Bringing me long flow paper
Signposting well
Good weighing
Smart strategy
Calling states in Eastern Europe "Yugoslavia"

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

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhathonest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, you'll probably lose. I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then I probably would avoid ev challenges.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

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

FAQ

Can I use speed? Yeah I mean go for it but make sure you're clear, ideally send a doc, and keep in mind that if I can't flow it without looking at your doc then I'm probably not writing it down.
Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
Can I read new wieghing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
Is cross open? Sure we ball
Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
Does a split panel change my judging prefs? Generally, I still want all of the procedural things to meet my normal prefs BUT I will give y'all a bit more credence on things like extensions or the LbyL just don't be egregious
Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

Xavier Moncada Hire

Jayant S Namdhari Hire

Last changed on Tue March 12, 2024 at 3:54 PM CDT

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts haha!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled K overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments to the round in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Vishnu Nataraja Hire 8 rounds

Shaheryar Rajput Hire None

Siddhartha Rana Hire 8 rounds

Rajat Reddy Hire 8 rounds

Siva Murugan Sambasivam Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 22, 2023 at 12:52 PM PDT

Siva Sambasivam

<< if you can explain the meaning of the two coins above, I'll start your speaks at a 29 (unless u do smth problematic in round) >>

siva.m.sambasivam@gmail.com

Saratoga High '20; started circuit debate my junior year - I qualified to TOC, NCFL, NSDAs, and California States, and reached the TOC autoqual level at both NCFLs and Nats, my junior and senior year respectively. I now privately coach a few teams around the circuit, and run the Delta Debate Academy. My teams have won TOC and t5'd NSDA Nats, so I should be able to keep up with whatever type of panel you have.

Debate is a game, play to win.

Debate is an educational activity, play fair.

TLDR: Tech > Truth, please warrant args and do comparative analysis, I’ll vote for anything. I can handle pretty much whatever you wanna throw at me, I think I'm a pretty good judge. except if you are Zach Yusaf - only two times I've ever squirreled were against him, so if you're hitting Hackley, free ballot for you :))

Most importantly, I appreciate debaters that are technically sound, but debate without ignoring the persuasive element of the activity - i.e. don't spam args in the back-half knowing that I'll be ABLE to sort through the flow, because I'd rather have my decision be simple.

Also, please make the round pleasant - nothing I hate more than spending time on a weekend watching kids get mad at each other. It's just debate; not that deep.

Standing Conflicts: F.C. B.A.L.L. Prep Group (Foothill AD, Centennial BN, Brentwood HM, Bergen KC, Anderson BC, La Salle GN, Lynbrook RG) + Seven Lakes LW

For 2021 TOC:

You should be disclosed at TOC - speaks boost if you do. That said, my threshold for any theory (disclosure or paraphrase) is super high here, because I really don't want to drop a team at TOC on theory.
Getting a 29+ from me at this tournament is super easy: 1. don't take more than 1:30 to pull up any given card your opponent calls for, 2. don't steal prep (I know this one is tough for PF teams), 3. don't interrupt someone in cross.
For online debate: Please send docs for case and rebuttal if you are going fast or reading something that's not stock - my zoom/NSDA campus cuts out often. Feel free to turn off export options or unshare me right after, I have no desire to take your prep, I just don't want to mess up a decision because someone cut out.
If y'all are cool with this, let's skip grand cross and take it as 1:30 of prep. Gcx begs people to interrupt each other and bring up new responses or new wEiGHiNg to arguments. You can have it if you want - but know I'll probably be listening to Juice or Cudi rather than the yelling match going on.

------

What has four letters,

Never has five letters,

Occasionally has twelve letters, and

Sometimes has nine letters.

------

Now the juicy stuff:

I will only intervene under two conditions: 1. If a team is skewed out of the round technically or accessibility is compromised. Keep debate safe and fun - read trigger warnings, send docs, etc (more on this below). 2. There is absolutely 0 weighing done - then I'll do my own impact calc because I really don't want to presume.
If you haven't had me before: As a debater, my favorite judges on the circuit were Cale McCrary, Riley Shahar, John Nahas, Cara Day and Conrad Palor - This would have been my ideal 5 judge panel, and a lot of my paradigm is based on theirs, so I'll evaluate rounds most similarly to them.
It's my job to adapt to you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible and feel free to ask paradigm questions before round.
Postround as hard as you feel like. I’ll continue the conversation for as long as you want (even after the tournament), unless I think it’s going in circles.
Second rebuttal must frontline turns and respond to weighing, if you wish to contest them. Otherwise, they are conceded, with full strength of link. Don't try some wand-waving in summary, it's a waste of your time. First summary only needs to respond to arguments that second rebuttal interacted with. (If second rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, you can backline it in first final focus). I'm willing to buy arguments that second rebuttal needs to FL everything.
I will ALWAYS disclose my decision and give an RFD, whether the tournaments bans it or not (pls don't snitch on me). I used to hate it when I didn't get a decision/feedback, especially from flow judges, because it prevented me from making mid-tournament adjustments. I think not getting judges' feedback gives a significant advantage to schools who can have coaches watch the round, and I want to level the playing field. Feel free to message me on facebook during or after the topic if you have any questions or want feedback/advice.
The only time I expect disclosure is if you read a pre-fiat argument with discourse as an impact. If you don't, it's not an auto-L, but disclosing is a way to show me that you are not commodifying my ballot. This also means I'm inclined to buy disclosure theory in this type of situation - I hate people running arguments like these just for ballots. I think it's great if you actually care, though, because debate can be used to bring awareness and force people to research/understand arguments they previously wouldn't have.

-General-

Please extend your link story with warrants in the back half - one exception: if a certain part of your argument is conceded, I don't NEED that part. For example, if you read in case a warrant for nuclear war -> extinction, I don't need that warrant extended in the back-half if it's conceded. Remember, if it is conceded, I don't NEED this, but I'd prefer it. If your entire arg is conceded, I still need at the least the link and impact. Debate is about efficiently and persuasively articulating arguments - if you don't do that in the back-half I'll be hesitant to vote for you, and your speaks will take a hit.
Cool with anyone speaking in cross, I don't see a reason why every cross shouldn't just have everyone involved, ESPECIALLY in rounds with pre-fiat and apriori arguments.
Please send a speech doc if it's either, A: above 350 wpm (cards) or B: above 275 wpm and a lot of paraphrasing and blippy analytics. As my old coach would say: I'll probably be fine without a speech doc, but it won't help you when I get distracted for 0.2 seconds and miss your 12 rOuNd WiNnInG TuRnS. I think speed is good for the activity, just try your best not to be exclusionary.
Speaker Point boost for disclosing - I think disclosing is good but I also have a very high threshold for disclosure theory and paraphrase theory because I don't believe teams should be *forced* to disclose. That said, I do believe it is a good practice and it does put you at a disadvantage, so let me know before constructive that you disclose, and I'll add 1 pt to speaks.
TKO (Technical Knockout) Rule: if you believe your opponent has 0 path to the ballot as long as you properly extend arguments, not just a small probability chance (they drop a warranted and extended ROTB and a clean link and they don’t have an external link into your ROTB, for example), you can call a "TKO" and the round ends early. If you're right, you win and get 30s. If you're wrong, you lose and get 20s.
For the second speaking team, no new final focus analysis is allowed unless it is responsive to new first final focus arguments.
If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.

-Substance-

DAs in second rebuttal: Here's the deal. Most of y’all accidentally do this anyway cause people don’t read proper "link turns" or "impact turns". That's fine. However, let’s make sure these are all warranted and implicated. Remember, warrants make arguments, implications make responses. Also don't just read disads, sprinkle in some analytics. Like, if your rebuttal is “oN ThEiR CaSe - iTs GoNnA sTaRt wiTh An OvErViEw.... COnTeNtIOn FoUr Is..." then please abstain. I already said I’m cool with speed, read your 12 contentions in constructive. Let's make rebuttal somewhat responsive.
Hidden arguments are fine as long as they have warrants.
Summary - this is BY FAR the most important speech in the round. I know other judges are willing to do this, even some of the best, but I will not vote for a team with a second speaker that ghost extends stuff into final focus. I won’t do that. Please extend your arguments well in summary. I also find the warrants for defense and turns go away by summary for a lot of teams - my rule about not voting for unwarranted arguments still applies to these. Even if you are winning 5 pieces of conceded terminal defense, if a warrant isn't extended, then I won't buy any of the defense.
sTrEnGtH oF LiNk meta weighing is the new "clarity of impact". I won't vote for it absent a very well developed warrant. Even if you do warrant it, I think it's stupid. This is pretty much a "trick" read by techy teams to skew another team out of the round. If someone reads it on you - here are 4 responses: 1. It destroys education because it encourages people to avoid impact calculus, which is key to real-world policymaking, 2. It also encourages people to extend tons of blippy defense through ink because frontlines are rarely terminal, as opposed to interacting with arguments, which is key to in-depth education, and 3. It discourages warranted link comparison, like historical precedent or uniqueness comparison, which is more applicable to the real world, and 4. If you win your argument, you also have 100 percent strength of link. Read these 4 responses and it'll probably take out the SoL metaweighing, if not serve as an independent reason to drop your opponents for setting bad norms (if you make this implication, obviously). I would absolutely love a team to drop if you win any of these. However, if you don't read these responses, I won't have any sympathy for you, because you should be reading paradigms before round.

-Weighing-

There are two ways I can comfortably vote for you: you either nuke them on the flow, meaning you just win the arguments indisputably and weighing isn’t needed, or you properly weigh. You'll likely have a better time in the latter category. With that:

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH. Comparative and INTERACTIVE weighing specifically.

Carded weighing and framing are great. Meta weighing is awesome. Link comparison is even better.

Weighing is not spamming random buzzwords. Weighing is not "OuR EcOn aRg OuTwEiGhS tHEiR LiVeS aRg On ScOpE." Do impact calc, and actually responsive impact calc (not just scope, magnitude, reversibility, timeframe, etc). While I do appreciate this traditional weighing, I would obviously prefer interactive and comparative analysis - i.e. link-ins, pre-reqs, short-circuits. I'm inclined to reward good internal link debate.
Just a piece of advice: disguise link turns here (i.e. if you are winning an Econ argument and you’ve conceded a war link, just give reasons why a bad economy link turns war and why it outweighs on probability for example). This is also a great way to get back in the round if you drop something big. But also don’t read new substantive link turns as “weighing” - there’s a difference and I’ll catch it.
Weighing that is not responded to in the next speech is conceded - that doesn’t mean you can’t do more analysis on it (i.e. linking into that weighing or reading a pre-req) but if the actual warrant on any weighing is dropped, it is conceded.
"Probability" is not weighing on the impact level. If an argument is won, the probability is high. You can do strength of link weighing, but ultimately anything you say is "probability weighing" is just impact defense that needs to come in rebuttal. The only time that I’ll evaluate probability weighing is if it’s new comparative analysis done on the link level between multiple arguments that could not have come in rebuttal.
Clarity of impact is not weighing unless you warrant why it is weighing (and there are ways to do this, ask me in round if you want) - but just saying that you have a number and your opponents don’t is a stupid way to look at debate, and encourages zero interaction and zero comparative analysis - I’m never going to vote on it absent a warrant. If you make a claim that your opponents don’t have impact contextualization, then sure, I’m more likely to vote for you, but pls pls pls don’t let cLaRiTy oF iMpAcT be your “weighing” in the round. Same thing with "uniqueness" weighing.
Do meta weighing and link weighing - if two teams both have links into an impact (which should happen in high-level rounds) - do link comparison. (Strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability). In my career I always HATED when judges intervened with their own thoughts about which warrant or link “made sense” - I’ve had this happen in super late elimination rounds at bid tournaments. If I’m in this scenario I will 100 percent not intervene - it is your fault for not giving me reasons for why your warrant is better even if everyone can agree it “makes more sense” - So, if everyone has extended warrants into the same argument and there is no terminal defense from either side, I’ll default to (in order):
- Which argument has less mitigatory defense (Strength of Link)
- If there's any empirics read on the argument
- Whoever is winning the uniqueness picture (since that makes it more likely that your link has a larger magnitude and greater SoL)
- I’ll prefer a carded link over an analytical link turn
- Remember, these are all easy ways to compare links, along with evidence comparison, that should be said in round, but if nobody says anything, this is how I’ll evaluate competing links.

-Theory-

TLDR: Default RVIs and reasonability, don't skew teams out of round with this

I really hate teams being exclusionary with theory but here are my bright lines so there is something that is concrete -

If a team is qualified to the GOLD TOC, they should be able to handle theory shells.
If you are at a Round Robin, the same goes.
If you are one round past the bid level at a tournament (i.e. sems at a quarters bid) go for it.
Otherwise, I'd prefer if you didn't read theory, but if you must: go slow, no jargon, and paragraph form.

If reading theory against a team that can handle it structure it properly and go as fast as you want. I’m cool with meta-theory. Do weighing between the shells.
As a side note, if I’m on a panel, please only read your shell if all the judges can handle it. I hate teams reading theory and then getting the benefit of doubt from the judges that don’t know what they are doing. This also means I’m inclined to vote on a shell saying you can only read theory if judges all expressly say they can evaluate it.
I default to RVIs unless told otherwise. Also, because theory is not a common argument, I default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. I will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was. I'm more than down to default competing interps, but please (1) explain what they are for your opponents and (2) give me a WARRANT as to why.
THIS is IMPORTANT - If you read no RVI’s - I do NOT believe winning no RVIs turn your shell into no-risk offense. I've heard from people that this is a hot button issue in policy as well right now, and because theory is still relatively new to PF, norms for theory debates are still being set. My stance on this is pretty simple - I've had theory debates (especially back when I didn't understand theory as well) where the warrants for an RVI never actually held up to what the judges considered an "RVI". For example:
- I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.
- (Chilling effect could be responsive, but you need to explain why) You can also read defense to your own shell/standards to get out of it, I think conditionality is fine.

Basically, theory is always more exclusionary than substance, so if we use jargon, let's not conflate what that jargon means.

If responding to theory/you’re reading my paradigm rn and worried some tech lord is gonna go 89 off on you, not to fret, just treat theory like any arg (logically) and you should be good ... this isn't an excuse to undercover it though.

-Tricks/K’s-

Ks. I prefer util debate. That said, I've read and debated basic K stuff so if you wanna read a K and that's your topic strat, I won't change that or penalize you for it. Just please be really clear and explicit and explain stuff well. Once again, if you are hitting a team that doesn't understand it, please be extra slow. I just say I prefer util because I'm less likely to make a bad decision/have to intervene for yall.
I’m definitely chill with forms of epistemological/deontological weighing, I think these aren't read well by teams and are often underutilized.
Tricks - just don't. If you are thinking about reading tricks with me in the back, you'll probably win substance anyway, so just do that, please. If you REALLY want to, tell your opponents 30 minutes before the round, and disclose the tricks if they ask.

-Speaks-

Speaks are subjective - If you are funny, chill and disclose - you’ll prolly get good speaks.
To give you a gauge on what I like - My favorite debaters stylistically were Matt Salah, Max Wu, Gabe Grodan, and Ezra Khorman.
Be calm and slow, or dominant and assertive, I don't care - I'm happy to give great speaks to both if you execute properly.
I know I have implicit biases, so I’ll do my best to counteract them while giving speaks.
30 speaks shell: Please don't read this. I think it’s read by predominately male teams and it further hurts womxn, gm’s, and minorities in the activity. As I said, I’ll try to prevent any action on my implicit biases but I won’t vote for this argument, because I do think this fosters exclusionary practices.

-Other-

Formal clothes are stupid - pull up in whatever you want. Make the round chill.

CX: I don’t listen. That said concessions in cross, obviously, can be leveraged.

I don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

-Two quick things-

I know you want to win and debate can get super heated and competitive. Trust me, I was never known for being nice in round. But at the end of the day, even if you can’t see it now, you are going to value this activity for the connections you’ve made and the people you meet, not for the nice trophy you get with a horse on top of it. Instead of making enemies, try to be chill and create friendships with the people you debate.

I know lots of schools don’t have many resources or coaching. If you are in this boat - feel free to ask me for help/advice after round, or even after the tournament. I dealt with this for a while and I know, it sucks. We’ll never fully fix the inequities in debate but the least that I can do is try my best. :)

If you’ve gotten this far in my paradigm, I have quite a bit of respect for you. I used to stalk paradigms to learn more about debate, so I love people that read paradigms in their entirety. Let me know that you made it here before round, just pm me in the zoom chat, and you'll get a speaks boost.

Cade Savoy Hire

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 3:40 PM CDT

Hey, I'm Cade (he/him). I debated and did extemp for Teurlings Catholic on the Louisiana and national circuits for four years. Now I compete for LSU (Geaux Tigers!) and occasionally coach/judge for Isidore Newman.

Generally, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. Also, I do want to be on the email chain. My email is cadetsavoy@gmail.com .

For Louisiana tournaments/traditional rounds:

I enjoy lay/traditional debate as much as I enjoy circuit debate. Sometimes, though, I find it frustrating. To avoid frustrating me (and to get more speaks and my ballot), I suggest avoiding the following practices:

-- Spending a lot of time on the framework debate when it really doesn't matter. Don't be afraid to concede framework if you think you can weigh your impacts under your opponent's framework. 39 times out of 40, the "value debate" has no weight in my decision-making process. Ask yourself how winning the framework debate affects your overall chances of winning the debate.

-- Not collapsing. Pick one or two arguments and go for them in your final speech. This allows you to develop your central claim much more fully than you otherwise would be able to in a 3-minute 2AR. I promise you will not be able to properly extend all of the offense you read in the constructive in your final rebuttal. Trust.

-- Not having real impacts while reading a consequentialist framework. Your impacts should be a scenario. Try to paint a clear picture of what the world of the aff/neg looks like. Err on the side of over-explaining your impacts. Also, weigh them against your opponent's impacts in terms of probability, magnitude, time frame, etc.

Housekeeping:

1] Post-rounding is good! It promotes education and keeps judges accountable. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like after my RFD. However, I will be capital p Pissed if your coach comes and fusses at me after the round has already ended — especially if you didn’t ask me questions when you had the opportunity. My only obligation as a judge is to make the best decision I possibly can. Sometimes, those decisions will be flawed. But under no circumstances will I ever be interested in engaging in any flavor of weird national circuit politics.

2] Don't be bigoted. Tech and truth go out the window the second you make a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary argument/remark.

3] For online debate: keep a local recording of your speeches in case someone loses connection. I really don't want to hear a rebuttal re-do.

LD/Policy

I'm putting LD and Policy in the same section because I think most of my relevant thoughts regarding LD and Policy apply to both events. If I have a thought that I think applies to either LD or Policy but not both, I'll flag it as such. Be mad if you feel so inclined.

Run whatever you want. I'll be fine. Still though, there are some arguments that I'm more experienced/better at evaluating than others. Here's a pref shortcut:

1- policy, traditional, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, more dense/complex Ks

3/4- tricks (depends on the level of density)

1] An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on anything that doesn't meet that threshold. I also won't vote on an argument that I can't explain back to your opponent in the RFD, so be clear.

2] Impact framing is really important in every debate, regardless of whether its a standard DA/CP v case debate or a K v K smackdown. I don't see myself connecting the dots for you, so, again, be clear.

--add on: I've found that I'm very reluctant to vote on vague/poorly explained impact scenarios. Err on the side of over-explaining the story of your impacts. I might care about it more than other judges.

3] I think I'm alright at flowing, but I would really appreciate it if you slowed down on tags and analytics, especially when you're reading theory. I'll say "slow!" or "clear!" as much as I need to, so I won't feel bad not voting on an argument because I missed it on my flow.

4] I think I'm fairly neutral in most K aff v T Framework debates, but I'm more receptive to T Framework arguments that leverage education/clash as impact instead of just "pRocEDurAl faIRnEsS." But in these debates, I think the side that paints the clearer picture of what their model of debate looks like typically wins.

5] For LD specifically, I don't understand what it means to defend the resolution but not defend "implementation." "Defending implementation" seems to me to be a logical consequence of fiat.

6] Also for LD specifically, I wish phil debates focused more on the logical syllogism of whatever normative theory is being debated than a bunch of poorly developed reasons to prefer.

7] I have a couple of defaults that dictate how I evaluate the round. They can all be changed with proper argumentation.

competing interps
DTA unless it's something that's irreversible like T
No RVIs
Epistemic confidence
No judge kick
presumption goes to the side whose advocacy deviates least from the squo
permissibility goes neg
comparative worlds

8] Debate means different things to different people. Be cognizant of that.

9] Be accessible. In the context of debate, this means not doing things that would jeopardize debate as a site of inclusive, constructive, and critical discussion. I think most people intuitively know what "accessibility" means in debate, but, just in case, I'll outline a few implications of the "accessibility" maxim:

a] Don't be a dick.

b] Don't be shady. Obviously, don't clip cards or falsify evidence. If you do, you'll lose. But also, be forthright about the arguments you're making. Don't act like you don't know what a floating pik is in cross. Don't send a doc with only some analytics (i.e. sending eight out of your nine frontlined responses to T but not the "I meet").

c] If you're debating a novice or a traditional debater, consider reading arguments with which your opponent can substantively engage. I won't penalize you for going for any particular strategy, but your speaks will look better if you make an effort to make the round productive.

All of the stuff from my LD/Policy paradigm apply to PF too. It's worth noting that I only competed in PF like three or four times, so I evaluate PF rounds the exact same way I would a policy-style DA v case debate in LD. I don't see why that would be problematic in any way, but it might be worth considering. Here are some of my PF-specific thoughts.

1] I think a lot of PF teams get away with really lazy extensions. It's not enough to just jump to impact weighing without explaining the link story of the argument you're going for. I won't vote for an argument that isn't properly extended.

2] It irks me when grand cross is dominated by only one debater from each team. I view every speech as a performance, and cross-ex is no exception.

3] PF rants and side quests:

a] Why are evidence ethics in PF so bad? Paraphrasing is stupid. I will give you +.3 speaks if you read highlighted sections of the actual text of what you're referencing. If you're going to paraphrase evidence anyway, put the full text of the card in the doc and highlight the parts that you're referencing. Also, every card you read should include the name of the author(s), the title of the piece, the date on which it was published, and a link/DOI if applicable.

b] Why are email chains in PF so weird? It seems incredibly inefficient to send cards your opponent calls for after the speech has already ended. Just send a complete doc before the speech starts! I will give you +.2 speaks if you send the doc before the speech starts.

Amrit Sharma Hire

Naman Singhal Hire

Hanming Sun Hire

Anya Tang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 7:35 AM EDT

Please put me on the email chain 4ristotle.x@gmail.com.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line and uses creative round vision. Debaters reading fun arguments and having fun is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event and I greatly appreciate it when teams use grand cross differently/creatively (i.e. students who use grand to ask how everyone's day is; students who use grand to discuss and propose moves towards equity in the event). I believe Ks need alts in PF.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge infrequently now. I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are just my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity.

Speaks- My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain high most of the time, especially during bubble rounds. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you. If there's something really egregious pointed out to me in the round, speaks will reflect that.

Speed - Number your responses. Please. More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson after the round with you.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions. Please be respectful of my time. Ask me for lit recs! (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts- For every student I judge, but especially students of color, queer/trans students, misogyny-affected students, students with disabilities, and first generation/low-income students: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. Y'all are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: I am a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage, and a good judge for you if this is your millionth time reading your favorite K author. I have the same expectations for your engagement with the scholarship in both cases; this is to say, I hope you provide a rigorous and original synthesis of the author(s) that you read with the topic that you choose to think through/with/against/beyond. What does this look like: you are identifying specific parts of the topic that you are critiquing, articulating how the impact interacts with the affirmative, and explaining why I need to frame the round in a certain way.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and critical scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Direct outing. Financial status, disability, queerness/transness, gender, trauma -- if you force your opponent to disclose that they have a disability to avoid a theory shell, I will be unhappy. I like it even less when y'all spend half an hour before round digging up your opponent's personal information, school, neighborhood, etc. It's unsafe, violating, and makes a lot of assumptions. If your opponent argues that this should be a reason to drop you, I will be inclined to drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. I evaluate direct outing differently from arguments that a certain model/method outs people and renders them vulnerable to structures of harm. What does this look like? "Are you queer?" "Can you afford a coach?" "Do you have a disability?" I understand debaters have good intentions and want to make rounds accessible sometimes. I also understand finding spaces of affinity is difficult. But I ask that y'all not do it under the competitive tensions of an adjudicated round. One way that has been helpful for me (and perhaps you have other suggestions) has been to ask, "What are some things I can do to make the round accessible for the both of us? For me, it would help to have 14pt or larger font for our tags."

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Sohali Vaddula Hire None

Vinay Vellore Hire

Sean Wallace Hire

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 2:52 PM EDT

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com AND georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com (if policy).

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. I don't have much topic knowledge.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. You must disclose anything that isn't new.

4. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred. If this is helpful, I am most persuaded by teams that debate like: Georgetown AM/BK/KL, Dartmouth SV/TV, Wake EF, Harvard BS.

Policy stuff:

I judge this most.

I basically only read cards as a tiebreaker for technical debating in close debates.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

Arguments about the procedure of debate/debating counterplans are more persuasive to me as theory, not competition. This is not a particularly strong opinion.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Planless affs:

I don't judge this much. My voting record is 50/50. I vote affirmative either when the negative drops a trick, or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative. Similarly, if the 2NR doesn’t go for T, it will be hard to persuade me to vote on disads to their interpretation.

I judge this a bit more. My voting record leans slightly policy. This is broadly a reflection of who has done the better technical debating in the particular rounds I have judged. I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy critiques that make aff specific and nuanced arguments for why the affirmative is bad, premised on framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research or justify policy.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan.

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

Jivon Yilegurta Hire

Nathaniel Daeyoung Yoon Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 3, 2023 at 4:52 PM EDT

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

Andy Zhang Hire

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 9:14 AM PDT

andyzhang5476@gmail.com

I debated 4 years on the PF nat circ as BL WZ and VDA TZ, with a bit of parli on the side

champed georgetown stanford and harvard, qualed and broke at toc/nats couple times

NOVICE: just explain your arguments, weigh, and have fun!

some general thoughts about how i view this activity that might be useful:

msc/eval:

debate is a game and you play to win
tech > truth
i say tabula rasa but thats a lie no one is rly tabula rasa
metaframing then COMPARATIVE weighing is the easiest path to the ballot and make me very very happy
presumption flows neg for policy and first speaking team for on balance
pls setup a email chain or evidence sharing doc...and....send cards???
i love a good impact da in rebuttal
i give speaks a lot of time based on my mood lol, lmk if its a bubble round tho
cross is so meh feel free to be petty (not rude tho debate is not a divorce court!! <3)

flow:

signpost, give roadmaps, pause for next sheet
line by line >>
speed goes brr but if ur gasping for air u should rethink your life choice, my threshold for spreading blippy paraphrased rebuttals and analytics is also in the floor atp
arguments with no warranting are not arguments, which applies to BACK HALF EXTENSIONS.
defense is not sticky and summary has 3 mins, dont be lazy
second rebuttal has to frontline everything that you wish to contest (including defense)

weighing/framing:

i default path of least resistance
if the debate is split evenly between bostrom and nixon i will lean extinction o/ws 99% of the time
competing deontological/sv fws should be overexplained and comparative
probability is not rly a weighing mechanism unless it strength of link or maybe empirics
offense > defense paradigm but ive found terminal d to be increasingly persuasive in messier rounds - 0% risk of link is a thing
if you blow up a turn there needs to be implication
i will not evaluate new prereqs made in ff

prog:

i used to hack for friv prog arguments but now ive matured!
i want speech docs regardless
procedural fairness is the only impact the ballot can technically solve
i think paraphrasing is bad, and content warnings and full text disclosure/first three last three are meh and also infinitely regressive
you need to extend the interp and violation in every speech
i default competing interps and yes rvis unless its T
reasonability acts as a mitigatory framing of impacts
i think topicality is dtd against non-t advocacies and terminal defense against substantive arguments bc theres no plan text in pf that skews engagement
rejection alts are fine unless its a non-t/perf in which case you should be reading theory of power and all that, also pls overexplain stuff the only lit im sorta familiar with is securitization/orientalism
i find aff impact turns to t-fw more persuasive than CIs and defining words in the res, and i find skills/education more persuasive than clash and fairness impacts.
good samaritan paradox and the psychoanalytical death drive make me sad

congrats on reading my rant <3

i'll pop into the room 5-10 mins before the round starts if you have any additional questions

good luck have fun :)

Justin L Zhang Hire

Rick Zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

The Debate Group PF Holiday Invitational

2021 — Online, US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges