Tabroom.com

TFA State

2021 — Online, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Clement Agho-Otoghile Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CDT

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Nibhan Akbar Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 11:44 PM CDT

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Gloria-Andrea Alcala Hire 6 rounds

Thomas Babcock Westwood 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 29, 2024 at 12:26 PM CDT

Istealprep@gmail.com

AND

BabciiDebate@gmail.com

It is pronounced Bab (ki) not Bab (chee).

I debated for Wichita State and JCCC. Currently an assistant coach @ Wichita State.

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. You do not get to handwave arguments away because they are "troll" or "science fiction". If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will keep a strict flow and decide the debate based on that flow and nothing else.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. You forfeited the right to say that when you disagreed that we are all here playing a game where we pretend to be the USFG evaluating policy proposals. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

TVA's matter a lot to me. I think well deployed TVAs are nearly unbeatable.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text. Otherwise it seems nearly impossible for me to vote against the perm in 99% of these debates.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence quality tends to matter more in T debates for me than most. Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

Mixed thoughts about judge kick. It’s probably fine but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If you can't win against a 2AC that straight turned a DA then you should lose or put in a 1NC CP that fiats out of the straight turn.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

I understand why we stopped because of Covid, but I miss handshakes between opponents. That being said, don't shake my hand.

Travis Babcock Westwood 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 7:23 AM EDT

yes email chain - babciidebate@gmail.com

judge for mill valley, westwood, and wichita east

TLDR- i debate at wichita state in college and used to debate at jccc, i do mostly policy stuff in college, fine with k's on both the aff and neg

top level

debate is a game and educational activity, it ought to be fair but there are other considerations as well

do what you do best! this is advice for both content and form

arguments need to have a claim and a warrant - this includes evidence - christmas tree highlighting of scary words is not an impact argument

k on the aff

Be related to the topic or don't, just have a solid defense of what you want to defend and why i should vote for it

i am agnostic on what is the best impact for framework or the best way to answer framework. this is not me trying to be tabula rasa, but simply a lack of framework 2nrs in my career and thus a lack of conclusive opinions on the subject. whatever you can explain the best and tell a coherent story with is the one you should go with

method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. you should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text

K on the neg

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech

most teams f/w interps usually aren't mutually exclusive with each other

unless told otherwise i will default to utilitarian calculus - which means the burden is typically on the negative to posit an alterantive view of ethics and impact calculus

Topicality

interp quality obviously matters but only insofar as it is impacted out and compared to other reasons i should value an interp

i usually default to competiting interps as reasonability is often packaged as a reason why limits are bad - you should just make that argument - saying the aff should get a lot of affs to pick from and the neg should just do more research isnt that hard of a sell imo

will default to judge kick unless the 1ar says something about it - the 2ar is not the time to start the judge kick debate

i honestly have no clue how anyone evaluates cp's besides sufficeincy framing and i have yet to hear a alternative way to evalaute them

everything is legit until someone says it isn't in which case it becomes a debate - create competition as you may

1nc's need to be full arguments with uniqueness, link, and impact - if one of these is missing the 2ac has my full authority to say "not an argument im not answering it until it is" and i will allow the 1ar to make as many new arguments as they want against the da

Link turns case is infinitely more important than you think it is, terminal impact turns case is infinitely less important than you think it is

there is not 'always a risk' - there is 'always a risk' of just about anything thats called randomness

misc

speaker points are my decision and i will not listen to arguments about them

a lot of how i think about debate is influenced by justin stanley, matthew vega, and phil samuels

wyatt beere Hire 6 rounds

Payton Bellman Hire 6 rounds

Bryan Benitez Hire 6 rounds

Dylan Bennett Clear Springs High School 3 rounds

Ben Brody Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 16, 2021 at 9:15 PM CEST

Benjamin Brody (He/Him)

First Year out of Winston Churchill HS

I did policy for 4 years, but have judged/coached/debated in LD.

Email chain pls - winstonchurchillbm@gmail.com

-Topicality-

Topicality is about competing interpretations unless I’m told otherwise and I think that the lit base determines reasonability. T interps should define both what IS and ISN’T topical. Intent to define is cool. Why is ur interp/counter-interp better for debate? Substantial is usually unpersuasive because I think it’s relatively arbitrary.

-Counterplans-

If you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough <3

Probably better if you have a solvency advocate for each part of the counterplan though.

Recut their evidence. I promise there's a counterplan hidden in their solvency advocate. Counterplans that are super specific to the aff are way more persuasive to me. Actor counterplans are boring.

I will judge kick the counterplan unless told not to.

I love good counterplan debates.

-Disadvantages-

Some of my favorite 2NRs were on the China disad so I really enjoy disad/case + disad/counterplan debates. I don’t think I’ve judged enough debates to know if winning a 0% risk is possible, but I won’t believe it till I see it. PLEASE do the framing debate (UTIL/structural violence/urgent bodies/whatever you want to call it), it is SO hard to judge a debate I don’t know how to evaluate.

Just as you would with a K, the block should be making more than one link argument.

Turns case arguments are underutilized (including link turns the case args).

-Kritiks-

SPECIFIC LINKS. I don’t enjoy K debates when they’re not about the aff. Explain your theory of power to me. I went for biopolitics a lot my junior year but I’m not gonna lie to y’all, I never read the lit, only the cards that we had in the file. In other words, explain to me either on the line by line or in an overview that does not require a different sheet of paper. The less I understand your theory, the less I want to vote for you, and the more persuaded I am by simple no link arguments. Make sure that before you initiate a big framework debate, that you actually need to do so. Like if you’re gonna let them weigh the aff and just impact turn it anyway, why do all the framework magic?

You don’t always need an alternative. But usually you do.

For aff teams: KNOW YOUR AFF AND DON’T MAKE EASY MISTAKES. Do they have a LINK? Did they extend an ALTERNATIVE? Have they explained an IMPACT? Did you remember to extend a PERM?

Almost every single time we debated the K my senior year, we went for framework and the aff outweighs. I will have a lot of respect for you if you have defense of your epistomology and a defense of what you do materially. You don’t have to defend that the state is GOOD, or even that it’s redeemable. Just win that it is an infrastructural unit capable of rectifying the issues that it creates. You’re never gonna win that the state doesn’t have a history or that the state is free from violence. But all the aff does is recognize violence (or the potential for it) in its most unmediated form, and use the state’s ability to regulate itself to unwrite that violence.

All that being said, sometimes going for framework is not the move. So answer specific links, turns case, disads to the perm, and severance. I find those arguments persuasive insofar as they are reasons to reject the permutation or as independent reasons to reject the aff.

Simple no link arguments will help you greatly.

-K Affs/Performance/Planless/Framework-

I will vote for framework. I will vote for the impact turn to framework. I feel like that's all you needed to hear.

Like most things, I enjoy judging these debates when they're done well. I prefer it when it's in the direction of the resolution, but also understand that sometimes that is not an option/not strategic. In any event, I think both the aff and negative team should have a reason why I give you my ballot. If you are the aff team, please explain what I am voting for/what your theory is/how you understand the world/the meaning of the 1AC. I prefer it if you can explain why my ballot actually has a causal influence as well. TVAs are underutilized. I probably think fairness is more of an internal link than a terminal impact but could be persuaded otherwise. What does your model of debate look like? Why is your model good not just for debates but also what we do once we leave debates?

-Theory-

(This is mostly for the LD folks) I did 4 years of policy. I have a hard time buying a lot of the theory stuff that y’all do in LD. I guess if you think you have a reason why you think that other team has made it structurally more difficult for you to win the round, then make the arg. Just make sure to explain it.

-Things I've Noticed About My Own Judging-

I find myself not voting for conceded arguments if they're not explained. Very cool that they dropped the counterplan in the 2AC, but "don't make me reinvent the wheel" is not an explanation as to why that conceded counterplan solves the aff.

I reward well thought out strategies.

-Things I Hate-

"See Pee"

"Dee Aye"

Needing a new page for the overview

Clipping

Being excessively rude/offensive

Death Good

Kellyn Burke Dulles High School 6 rounds

Seung Joh Cho Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 24, 2022 at 5:36 AM CDT

email: seungjohcho@gmail.com

PF paradigm:

I did PF for 4 years, and I did Big Questions for a few weeks at L C Anderson High School. I won both NSDA Nats and TFA State.

Just do whatever you planned on doing. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear. If you aren't good at spreading, first of all, you really shouldn't be doing it in PF, but if you really need to and you know you are bad at it, save yourself the L and flash me the doc you are reading. I value "tech over truth", in the sense that I will vote purely based on the ink on the flow, and I am willing to buy arguments that may not be true at all in the real world, as long as they were well articulated on the flow.

I don't flow cross fires at all, so unless you have an audience to please, I'd say just chill out a bit on cross fires. They won't really affect my decision. Also yes, I realize I was an aggressive debater myself, but if you're straight up being rude, I will dock speaks, which you really don't want from me because I generally give good speaks, so getting bad speaks from me will make you look even worse.

Make sure you weigh and you explain to me why you think you won the round by Final Focus, as I do not want to have to do that for you, especially on topics where I probably don't have any prior topic knowledge.

I will call for cards that you have asked me to call for, or cards that seem sketchy that are central to the round. In most cases, however, I will default to whatever the debaters tell me their cards say, so make sure you stay on top of that.

You do not have to extend defense if it is dropped. If it is addressed, however, I will obviously expect you to address it in speech if you are going for it.

Make sure you are sign posting.

Also please let me know where on the flow you will be starting your speech so that I can start flowing it well.

If you read frivolous theory, keep in mind that I probably will not weigh it unless it is completely dropped/inadequately responded to. I am also not a fan of disclosure theory in PF. That is not to say I won't evaluate it by default, but also run at your own risk.

And finally, everything you want me to vote on should be extended all the way to final focus. Even if it was dropped, if you do not extend it in final focus, I will not default you the win on an argument.

If you have any other questions for me, feel free to ask before the round!

LD Paradigm:

Read PF paradigm, should give you a sense of my debate background maybe how you should adapt.

Plans, CPs are all totally fine

Theory, Ks, more tech arguments are all good with me. Just do whatever you planned on doing.

Spreading is totally fine.

I made it to UIL LD State once, so post-round me as hard as you want, as long as it is educational.

Jerry Crist Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 1 rounds

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

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

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

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

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

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

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

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

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

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

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

Speaking and Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Jonathan Daugherty Vista Ridge High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 1:08 PM PDT

PF Paradigm at the top, LD at the bottom. I approach the events in a completely different manner. I wouldn't apply what is in the PF paradigm to LD.

PF Paradigm

I am a coach that has been involved with debate for a while. At the most basic level, I will evaluate the impacts students have access to at the end of the round using the weighing/framing mechanisms provided. You should be weighing in the back half of the round. Here are some notes about the details.

-I am listening but not flowing crossfire. While I'm not voting on anything that is said here, I am judging your knowledge of the important args and the topic in general.

-I am not tab. The best description of my judging style is a critic of argument. I want to vote for the best debaters, and to that end, I feel this activity is at its best when students explain warrants. I will vote on consequential drops, but I almost never vote on unwarranted blippy claims, even if they are carded. So for instance, if Smith 20 says "the economy will crash in two months," and that is the end of the story; for the purposes of the round I am not assuming the economy will crash in two months. You need to explain why Smith thinks that and contextualize its importance within the round. If Smith doesn't give a reason you are comfortable explaining, or you don't understand why Smith thinks that, this argument should not effect the RFD. My bar for a warrant that I will accept is very low(often I disagree with the warrant but still accept it), but the bar does exist. Just give me something that makes sense. The top competitors warrant and do all this naturally, so I don't think a lot of adapting should be going on.

-I prefer a brisk but understandable pace in the rebuttal/summary speeches, offense in the FF needs to be clearly extended (preferably weighed) throughout.

-I view debate as a game that teaches essential skills, and will vote for the students that in my opinion win the game. Using offensive arguments or not respecting the dignity of your opponents will lead to you losing the game.

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on theory. I am ok with paraphrasing but prefer direct quotations. I do not expect disclosure (full text or otherwise).

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on a non-topical K. There is a zero percent chance I will vote for a K that links into the topic in general. If the K has a strong link into the opponents advocacy, I will consider it, but probably still vote against it.

-Defense is not sticky.

-You should frontline in 2nd Rebuttal.

-Sell terminal defense, I have a higher bar for granting access to the impact then a lot of judges.

-There is no reason for a plan or CP.

-I don't like politics DAs, in policy rounds they work as a net benefit to a CP decently, but as independent offense in PF I think it is poor in general. The only way I'm voting on it is if it the other team severely mishandles it or has no offense I can comfortably vote on.

-If you want to see cards have the names ready and say them immediately after the speech. The 1st speaker for each team should be ready and adept at sending cards. I am not ok with a stream of asking for cards one after the other stretching out the time. The PF round should end in roughly an hour.

LD Paradigm

The PF paradigm above doesn't apply very much here. I debated LD in high school, but that was a long time ago. In LD, I'm resigned to being tab and voting on execution. I will try my best to reward the better debater, so if you can go fast and clear that is good.

I prefer debate on the topic and I view this activity as a game, so my natural inclination is to expect the resolution to grant both sides with ground, although the specifics can be debated. In general, I don't like to vote on blippy drops. I rarely vote for non-topical affs. Framework debate is ok and I will vote for the debater that executes their style the best. I enjoy judging debates with clash, and reward developed arguments which clearly link to the core issues of the resolution. I will vote for Plans, CPs, DAs, Ks, Theory, and framework. You are not winning the round in cross.

I don't have a problem with speed, but if I can't understand what your saying I will not connect the dots for you. A brisk speech that is clean is preferable to a faster pace in which words are mumbled and there are many noticeable stumbles. I keep a detailed flow and if an argument is dropped it matters. I like to hear voters during the final speeches.

Yesh Dhruva Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 4, 2023 at 5:46 AM CDT

Clements '20 | SLU '24

Email chain/Gdoc: yesh.dhruva@slu.edu

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years at Clements HS in Houston TX (didn't compete on the nat circuit much). I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State twice and NSDA Nats. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon.

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

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

**As mentioned above, Please watch for speed when competing online, if you would like to go fast I will expect a speech doc so I can make sure I get everything**

Couple of last ideas I don't really want to type out:

-Please skip GCX if you can, we both want to get out of the round asap and I don't think it really does much for the round anyways

- Please make sure evidence is legit, if I notice it's not what you say it is, I won't buy the argument

- Save my soul and don't waste time sending evidence

LD/CX

- treat me as a lay, I flow as much as I can. I will try to make the best decision possible, but I honestly have no idea what I'm doing in this event.

- if you spread kiss the ballot goodbye. I did PF so don't go all out on me.

- If it helps, look at my PF paradigm (above), if you want some idea of how I judge PF.

Congress

- I have no idea what I'm doing.

- I can tell who's doing good and who's doing bad.

- Be nice.

---

Ask any questions to me if necessary (contact me at yesh.dhruva@slu.edu or tbh just message me on FB - I respond here fastest), and remember to enjoy each round!

Joseph Donowho Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

David Erard L C Anderson High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 5, 2020 at 3:27 AM CDT

Core Judging Philosophy:

As a Public Forum judge I am partial to tech debate, therefore what happens or doesn't happen on the flow is the preferred basis for my decision. I find the query of my being “tech over truth” or “truth over tech” to be a reductionist question. I will vote on a clean argument on the flow before I vote on a more realistic yet poorly extended argument. Proper signposting can be a valuable tool in this endeavor.

I will avoid using prior my knowledge or experience on a topic, or from previous rounds, to come to a decision. My decisions are derived from the information provided in the round I am judging only. A consistent and clear narrative will help you when the flow is muddled.

Speed:
I am fine with speed if you have good enunciation and volume. If you are capable of “varsity LD level” spreading then let me know that pre-round. If you are concerned about being too fast or unclear to be understood by me then you are also welcome to add me to an email chain for me to follow/understand you using your documents (if you choose to do this you must also include your opponent).

Weighing:Weighing in the final speeches is extremely important. I want a clear, quantifiable, and comparative weighing of impacts. If I have to calculate for myself which impact is more significant then you may not find the result you are looking for and making a judge do the work of weighing is not something that most judges want to be burdened with. Organizing the final focus speech by voters is not required but can be very helpful to a judge.

Opinions:
I like to see well-warranted evidence comparison (evidence weighing if you will). I also will vote on evidence over analytics without exception. If you find yourself stating opinions and analysis that are your own without evidence, then you are at risk of losing the round, no matter how logical your statement may be.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points range from 25-30. Only speeches I deem to be highly offensive or abusive will be given less than 27. In my four years of judging this has yet to happen, don’t be my first. I do not deduct for more aggressive debate styles, so long as teams are evenly matched opponents and there is nothing overtly abusive about the exchanges.

Other Notations: Time yourselves and your opponents, I want my focus to be on the round. Timing exception being if I am judging a Novice team who would like me to assist.

Concise road maps before the speeches following constructive are appreciated.

I will not flow crossfire/CX. If you get an important concession in cross bring it up in your next speech if you want me to consider it.

Framework and impact framing is preferred, and when well executed will often be an important consideration in my final decision. If no framing is present then I will evaluate the round using a cost-benefit analysis of comparative worlds, as is standard.

Zane Evans Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 12:25 AM CDT

PUBLIC FORUM: Tabula Rasa ; Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

POLICY DEBATE: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; I'm okay with running Ks, as long as they are well explained and topical

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

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

TFA STATE:

PUBLIC FORM: I'm a Tabula Rasa judge on the surface and a classic debate judge in my core. Progressive debate is okay with me. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. I expect each round to be educational. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues , and my own expertise / knowledge.

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

UIL CX STATE:

I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. Frameworks and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I expect each round to be educational. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues and my own expertise / knowledge.

PHILSOPHY:

SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely understand your PLAN by the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SOLVENCY! USE FIAT WISELY.

NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. ALL ARGUMENTS MUST LINK TO THE AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with AFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED.

BOTH: WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

Maxwell Fuller Hire 6 rounds

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

Background:

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speed:

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

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

Types of Arguments:

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

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

The Split:

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

Summary:

Defense is NOT sticky.

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

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

Evidence:

Truthful paraphrasing > miscut cards.

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

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

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

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

Card dumps ≠ warrants, pls explain your arguments.

Speaker Points:

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

Layna Fultz Hire 2 rounds

I debated in PF for three years at Westlake High School (Austin, TX).

I mean, sure, I'm a tech/flow judge and I'll get whatever jargon you use, but I am a firm believer in the more traditional style of PF in that it's called public forum for a reason. What I mean is that you should always present your arguments in a way that anyone can understand because that is the fundamental principle of the event... even though it's becoming more and more technical in recent years. Basically that entails following these guidelines:

- avoid spreading/talking too fast in general

- use minimal amount of jargon (I know it's hard to avoid sometimes, so I get it!)

- don't run plans, CPs, Ks, etc... honestly not only do I think these just don’t belong in PF, but I also might not even completely understand what you're saying. Obviously, y’all are gonna do what you want, but it probably would be in your best interest to stick to regular arguments with me as your judge.

With that said, I'm not saying I'm gonna down you for being super tech, but it's not gonna help you.

*side note on that: it does not matter who your opponent is. I don’t care if it’s a team you’ve debated a million times, I believe that you should be treating every opponent and judge with the same etiquette.

Now to the meat of the round:

Weighing is super important!!! In summary I wanna see y'all break everything down to me clearly with fleshed-out link chains, then in FF make sure not to just weigh on impacts, but weigh the strength of your link chains as well. Always discuss magnitude… MITIGATION is your best friend!

I feel like this goes without saying, but second rebuttal HAS to frontline, and try to mention any arguments your opponents may have dropped that you plan to carry into next speech. In rebuttals I do love a good overview.

I appreciate when y’all call for questionable sources. If key evidence has been cherry-picked or misconstrued the argument is almost certainly getting dropped.

Finally, please use cross to your advantage! I know that it is not usually seen as a super important part of the round, but if you're strategic about your questions it can be a life saver to catch your opponents in a contradiction or something, so don't let this time go to waste (I promise I'll actually be watching lol). No I’m not going to “judge” cross as part of the argument, but it will carry a lot of weight in speaks. I will also dock your speaks if you're condescending or if you just don't talk at all (if 1 partner does all the talking in GCX).

When it comes to speaker points, you will not be getting higher speaks just because I think you should be in out rounds. If your speaks aren’t good enough, you won’t make it to out rounds, that’s literally why they exist— automatically awarding them to the team that I think should move on would render them meaningless.
Anyways, this should be something fun, so I wanna see y'all actually enjoying yourselves and not taking everything too seriously! GOOD LUCK!!

Carlos Gregory Hire 2 rounds

Sophia Gustafson Duchesne Academy Of The Sacred Heart 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 7:22 AM MDT

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com . Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org . Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
Frontlining
Defense/Turn extensions
Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olivia Hardage Hire 4 rounds

Grant Gunther Hess Hire 6 rounds

Samia Hijazi Hire 6 rounds

Samir Idrees Hire 6 rounds

Hanaa Irfan Hire 6 rounds

Ali Sohail Jalal Hire 6 rounds

Sohail Jouya Westwood 2 rounds

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

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

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

BIG PICTURE

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

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

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

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

FORM

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUNCTION

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

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

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

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

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KRITIKAL DEBATE

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

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

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

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

Grace Elizabeth Judice Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 14, 2020 at 12:21 PM CDT

Hi! I competed in LD, PF, and CD in high school, along with several platform events (OO, Info, DX, FX). I did interp events in middle school, but didn't we all? I'm in college now and basically spend every weekend judging debate tournaments. If you have any specific questions about my paradigms or a decision, please reach out to me. My email is graceejudicee@tamu.edu! I love providing feedback!

I don’t like spreading. The purpose of a debate round is to use critical thinking skills to convince your opponent/judge of a specific argument, not speak so fast that you lose your opponent and gain the upper hand in the round.

Generally speaking, I prefer a traditional style of debate. However, if you chose to go for a theory shell argument, I will flow it. Just be careful. If you ONLY/MAINLY go for theory, there is a good chance that your opponent will have an adequate response, leaving you with very little offense.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that it is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

Doing the weighing for me is like an insurance policy. In rounds where there is a lot of clash, some arguments turn into a wash. When you weigh, in addition to extending arguments across the flow, you are giving me more reasons to vote for you.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that your evidence is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

If I hear something in final focus that wasn’t brought up in summary, you’ve just wasted your own time.

If you are second rebuttal, you need to frontline.

Congress

A great PO will make my ballot, but I always prefer great speakers. I know it is difficult to find a PO in lot of rounds, so I always appreciate volunteers.

If you aren’t the first affirmative or first negation, I expect some sort of clash. Refer back to your fellow representatives. I don’t want to hear 3 speeches with the same exact points.

Questioning is important. If you have great speeches, but fail to participate in the rest of the round, that will result in a lower ranking.

Don't speak just to speak with zero preparation if you know it will be a terrible speech! I'd rather a chamber move to previous question after 3 speeches than hear someone speak for 2 minutes off the top of their head. Keep in mind, this is different than writing a speech during recess. I always appreciate those that offer to write during recess to keep the round going.

I'd rather hear one "6" speech from you than three "4" speeches.

Once you enter the chamber, stay in "character", even during recess. Compared to other styles of debate, delivery and presentation is more important.

IEs/Extemp

Make me laugh. I love humor, but forced humor and stock introductions are awkward. Cringe.

For extemporaneous speaking, PLEASE provide a clear introduction with a source AND a preview of your three points. Extemporaneous speeches without some sort of preview/roadmap during the introduction are often unorganized. Also, actually answer the question. This seems like a no brainer, but you'd be surprised.

Delivery and presentation always matter, but CONTENT is SO important.

In out rounds, I expect the time of your speech to be pretty close to the time limit on the TFA ballot. Basically, 4 minute extemporaneous speeches in semi finals won't fly with me.

Chance Kauffman Hebron High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 2, 2021 at 6:16 AM CDT

Updated 11/2/2021 for The Hebron Standard

Background

Hebron High School, 2016-2020. I did NCX for one year, debated in VPF for ~three years, and have done Congressional Debate once or twice as a filler. I've been judging for a year now.

Quick Notes

If you don't want to read the whole thing because it's five minutes before round, I'm tabula rasa, tech > truth. Give me reasons to believe your arguments and warrant clearly. I'll probably vote for whoever has the more robust and fleshed out arg at the end of the round.

I'll nod at you if I like the way you're taking the round, if I look really unamused with you, that's not a good thing. Humor, when appropriate, scores you big points with me.

Concessions can be as easy as, "we concede the delink, onto our next argument", don't waste time explaining an argument you're not going to focus on.

I don't believe in open cross, the first two crossfires should be one on one only. Mainly because I like to see what individual team members know, strong case and topic knowledge in crossfire is always fun to see. I also don't like flex prep, but if both teams agree to it before the round, it can happen.

Second speaking team has to respond to the first rebuttal (particularly turns) or the arguments are dropped.

If you want to run super technical theory args, I can follow them, but I am not receptive. This is Public Forum, your arguments should be accessible to a layman. Strike me if this is your plan. That being said, there is a place for theory. If there is legitimate in-round abuse with a non-frivolous harm, go for it.

If you read theory against novices I'm dropping you.

If you flip second and proceed to read a weird/substantially non-standard or non-topical framework, I will be very, very receptive to in-round abuse args your opponents make against you. If you want to do this, flip first, flip side or strike me.

I'll usually default util on framework unless I think another one is better for a specific topic. If you provide an alternative framework I'll probably go with it. If you want me to default to the listed framework don't bother reading framework. Default frameworks for specific topics are below.

Novcember Blockchain: Utilitarian

!!! - Virtual Accommodations and Regulations

I don't really know how tournaments are going to go given the prevailing circumstances in the world right now, but there's a few things that I'll probably do differently given the different format.

- You'll probably get high speaks, if whatever service we're using is having problems or if I can't understand what you're saying due to internet lag/poor mic quality I will request your speech doc so I can follow along.

- No need to dress up, really. You're probably at home, don't make yourself uncomfortable for my benefit.

- I can flip a coin on my end, one team can call it.

- Since I'm not available IRL for post-rounding I'll provide an email you can contact me at on the ballot if you have any further questions that come up after the round. Please be specific in your questions. I usually answer general "what could I have done better" things on the ballot.

- Unless tournament regulations specify another method to take, each team will get one 'tech resolution period' (i'm not creative with names) that they can use if someone gets disconnected or there are serious audio problems. Signal in the text chat, and I'll pause the round. You detail the problem to me and try to fix it, debate resumes from the start of the speech with time reset after the issue is fixed. If I find that teams are using this as a tactic to interrupt speeches, I will revoke it. If I find that you're cheating on prep by lying about tech problems, I'm going to be livid. These are already bad circumstances, please just try to be respectful and only ask for a pause during someone's speech if it is absolutely critical. This doesn't apply if I'm on a panel.

PF PARADIGM

- Coin Flip: Do it outside, or in the round. I don't care which. Or, if you can agree on sides/positions, that works too. The faster you chose sides and we can get to what matters, the better.

- Disclosing: I will almost always disclose and give my RFD following the round unless the tournament has specifically prohibited me from doing so. When you leave the room you'll know who won, if I'm not allowed to disclose I'll write as much as I can on the ballot. Feel free to ask questions about my decision. I think it's important for teams to understand why I decided the round the way I did, and having people ask questions is a great way to ensure that I'm doing my job as an evaluator well. I'm also receptive to post rounding, as long as you're respectful about it.

- Crossfire: Being overly aggressive in cross will not affect me, but it will affect your speaker points. Try to be respectful. The first speaking team should always get the first question in all crossfires unless they concede it. Second speaking teams already have massive structural advantages in the round, and I don't think crossfire should be another.

- “Clear”: If your opponent is going too fast, I’m fine if you say clear to get them to slow down. Abusing this will lead to a sharp decline in your speaker points, and possibly a lost round. I will clear you when you're either going too fast, mumbling, or any other circumstance where I can't understand you. If you have a heavy accent/stutter don't worry, I will do my best to accommodate that, but I may require your speech doc to follow along.

How I Evaluate Rounds

- Extremely tech > truth. If you run something, and if your opponents don't challenge it, it flows through and I'll consider it when I vote. I prefer more unique arguments in general, but if your stock argument makes more sense than your opponent's arg that impacts out to nuke war (somehow), that should be really easy for you to dismantle.

- With tech > truth in mind, probability still matters. I'll value an outlandish argument with like zero probability if your opponents don't contest it, but if they can show how their impacts are more probable, they'll win that weighing issue. If you don't want me to weigh that way, give me a reason not to.

- Collapse on arguments! If you don't, it makes for a messy flow and muddles the weighing at the end. You should start collapsing as early as summary. I need a clear voting issue that has been weighed against your opponents' by the end of the round. Extending smaller stuff like turns in conjunction with your main arg is fine, but if you just put a bunch of impacts on my flow without any weighing, I have to do that myself. If my RFD is your Final Focus, and your Final Focus mirrors the summary, you've done your job perfectly.

- I'll call for cards following rounds if a dispute comes up over a particular piece of evidence during the debate, or if I believe one team is misrepresenting a piece of evidence. If I do find out that you've totally misrepresented/fabricated a piece of evidence, I'm giving you a loss, min speaks, talking to your coach, and the tournament organizer. Don't do it.

- In addition, if your opponents ask for a piece of evidence, you must present it in the form they ask for. If they ask for the full article/pdf and you only have access to the cut card form, I will drop that evidence based on their request.

- Underview > Overview for weighing, but you can structure your case however you like.

- I try to give speaker points based on team strategy, and my absolute minimum is a 27 unless you do something especially egregious. (dropping your case w/o any turns to go on, etc.) If your strategy makes sense you shouldn't need to worry about speaks, just debate.

- Extending arguments should be full. I’m way more likely to extend something on my flow that is clearly and well warranted and explained than a blippy “Extend Card Name, Year”. You literally don't have to extend the card author names or dates, extending the warranting and actual argument is way way more important to me.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I'll judge your congress round like a debate round. Speeches should have clash and references to other speeches, and questions should serve to effectively poke holes, help out someone on the same side of the bill as you, or to set up an argument that you intend to make.

CX / LD PARADIGM

If you see me sitting in the back of your room in a CX or LD round, I kinda sorta know what I'm doing. A little. In all seriousness, I did CX for a year and am familiar with the argumentation involved and how to effectively evaluate a CX round. I do have problems understanding unclear spreading, but if you put me on the email chain / flash / share your docs with me or just make it so I can hear you and slow down on tags there shouldn't be a problem.

John Klassen Trinity School of Midland 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:53 AM CDT

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."

John Lin William P. Clements High School 6 rounds

Yiji Lin St John's School 3 rounds

Samuel Loh Hire 1 rounds

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

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

Conflicts: Walt Whitman DP and Marist School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack E. Maedgen Hire 6 rounds

Jacob Mammen Hire 6 rounds

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

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

Myself:

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

PF Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

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

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

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

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

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

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

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech Preferences

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

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

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

Framing

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

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

Weighing/Collapsing

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

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

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

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

Extensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive arguments:

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

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

Speaks/Speed:

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

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

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

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

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Round Disclosure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD/CX Paradigm

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

Extemp Paradigm

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

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

Random

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

Lastly, have fun!

Parth Mathuria Hire 6 rounds

Cale McCrary Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 10:43 PM CDT

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Hafsa Moeez Hire 6 rounds

david morales Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 10, 2021 at 4:21 PM EDT

I did Public Forum debate in high school. However, that was four years ago, and I have not been involved in high school debate for a couple years. Thus, my paradigm may be a bit dated and my "jargon" skills a bit slow.

What I prefer to see in a round:

1. Keep the other team accountable by timing them yourselves. Try to have pre-flows before the round please.

2. Take it easy during crossfire, that being said I may occasionally transcribe a card name that I missed in speeches. Bring up CX concessions in speeches.

3. Please signpost and give me succinct roadmaps for every speech.

4. You don't have to go back to case during rebuttal if you are second speaking team.

5.When you make an extension it is okay to extend the idea behind the card, you don't always have to extend the argument by extending an author name

6. Do not extend through ink or go for dropped offense, I will not evaluate the argument.

7. Defense sticks in 1st summary, meaning that I do not expect defensive argument extensions in 1st summary. In both summaries new evidence can be brought up but new arguments cannot.

8 Please don't let GCX devolve into a shouting match

9. I am okay with a line by line summary or crystallization summary but I typically prefer a big picture final focus. WEIGH in summary and Final focus, make my job easier. If you don't weigh or make sound extensions I will have to evaluate arguments in my head and that forces me to intervene when I shouldn't have to.

I try not to intervene in a round but I will if:

1. I am forced to weigh arguments and do argument comparison for them.

2. Evidence is egregiously misconstrued.

Progressive PF

I am okay with Jargon, I would try to shy away from it in general.

I am okay with Plans and CP's

I do not like Kritiks in PF, but I will evaluate them if they are fleshed out well enough and extended. I will evaluate theory especially if any of the aforementioned progressive arguments comes up. I am more likely to pull the trigger on theory even if it's blippy against K's, CP's, and Plans.

If you are running any progressive arguments please walk me through the logic.

Speaker points:

be funny

Pretty generous with speaks typically give 27-30

If you're rude in any sense of the word you will get horrible speaks (20-26)

Naufil Mulla Hire 2 rounds

Alexandra Myers Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 30, 2022 at 8:19 AM CDT

churchill '20

i competed in policy debate for 4 years and debated on the national circuit.

put me on the email chain - alexmdebatejudging@gmail.com

***i flow on paper. when reading topicality, theory, or framework arguments, please slow down. if i don't flow an argument, it's because you did not articulate it clearly.***

-- topicality --

i generally default to competing interpretations, but most certainly can be persuaded otherwise. have thorough explanations of the internal link and impact - repeating the phrase "they explode limits" 5 times tells me nothing.

-- counterplans --

good counterplan debates are great to watch. explain why the counterplan is distinct from the affirmative and why it solves. aff specific counterplans are always better than generic ones.

-- disadvantages --

have impact analysis and comparison of internal links. turn case arguments are important and underutilized. always answer the framing debate. there should be comparison between models of decision making. surface level, tag-line phrases about extinction being irreversible aren't enough to persuade me to value extinction first, especially when aff teams have well warranted framing args - the 2nr needs a clear, warranted link story, particularly true with politics disads because the evidence is notoriously shallow

-- kritiks --

for neg teams reading the k: no large overviews, i'd rather have that explanation done on the line by line. regarding framework, i generally default to weighing the aff. framework on the kritik is a link-framing argument. i need warrants why your interpretation/model of debate/role of the ballot is preferable and/or resolves the affirmative's offense. why should i utilize your framing as the lens through which i make my decision?

have specific links to the aff. even if you read a generic piece of link evidence, you can still utilize the warrants in that evidence and contextualize it to rhetoric or action of the 1ac. if you're making an ontology claim, i won't just vote on ontology - you still need a link to the aff. you should make arguments as to why the links turn the case.

i'm not familiar with a majority of kritik literature, so don't assume that i know what you're talking about. please explain your theory/thesis. buzzwords are vague and don't actually articulate the implication of your argument. i need to know what the alternative is, what it does, and why is the ballot necessary. arguments about why the alternative resolves the impact of the affirmative are always useful. generally i think you need an alternative in the 2nr, but can be convinced that you don't - just explain why

***no death good/death inevitable args -- i don't find those arguments persuasive at all***

aff teams debating the k: far too often i think affirmative teams are too defensive and aren't prepared to defend why the aff is good. have reasons why discussions about the 1ac and its content are good for debate. framework interpretations along the lines of "neg should read a competitive policy option" are not that strategic or compelling. make sure you're responding to the negative's specific framework standards.

the 2ac should line by line each link argument; waiting till the 1ar will put you behind in the debate. don't group the all of links. saying "their ev is not specific to the affirmative" is also no a sufficient response. you should address the argument made by their evidence and explain why the aff doesn't say/do that. please explain what the permutation is and how it functions. have warranted analysis as to why the permutation resolves the negative's offense.

-- k affs/performance/framework --

i'm more inclined to vote for framework but can definitely be persuaded to vote against it. i need to know what your model of debate looks like and how that compares to their model of debate.

neg teams: just like with topicality, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. fairness is probably more of an internal link to education than its own impact, but you should make the argument that fairness is an intrinsic good. you'll likely need a tva otherwise aff arguments about why you exclude their education become more convincing.

aff teams: i'd prefer that the 1ac would have a close connection to the topic. i need to know what the 1ac means and what it does. if the speech act of the 1ac is significant, why? why does the ballot have a causal influence on that?

-- theory --

what specifically did your opponent do? why did that make it structurally more difficult for you to debate? new affs bad and aspec are 2 arguments in debate i never want to vote for. please slow down when you're reading theory.

-- for LD debaters --

everything i said above about how i evaluate policy debates applies to LD too.

i don't like a lot of the theory stuff that y'all do. if you must go for theory, like any other procedural argument, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. i won't vote on an RVIs. they don't make sense, and you shouldn't be punished for reading a theory argument.

-- for PF debaters --

at the beginning of the round, the team speaking first should start an email chain. both teams should email out your entire case before your first constructive speech. in speeches after the first constructive, send out all the evidence you read *again before the speech* -- the amount of time wasted after/in between speeches asking for and sending evidence is ridiculous -- if you don't flash evidence, that will be reflected in your speaker points

-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --

Divya Nagaraj William P. Clements High School 6 rounds

Brandon Niday Hire 1 rounds

Please be quick calling for cards and setting up email chains. You waste time and slow the tournament down when it takes super long in between speeches to show evidence.

Overall, use critical thinking skills and your own analysis to persuade me. Don't read straight through your evidence and count on me to understand everything; do the intellectual footwork for me. Weigh throughout the round. Framing is encouraged. Speed is discouraged. I'mokay with open cross if circuit rules and both teams are.

Read my written comments on the ballot! I give useful, constructivefeedback.

Disads: Try to make these arguments persuasive and reasonably believable. Sure, you might chain the impact to include nuclear war, but if it isn't likely, it's less important to me.

Counterplans: Please read the plan text slowly and thoroughly explain why it would solve better than the affirmative . The counterplan text should not be a paragraph long. Use your own words in the speech to signal that you actually know what you are advocating for.

Topicality: Please go very slowly on these arguments, because I want to write down every part of the shell. If I don't understand every part of the shell, it's difficult for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Kritiks:Only run these if you can explain every part of the shell in simple terms, especially what the alternative would tangibly look like. Provide authentic analysis in your own words on the kritik's substance so I can understand better.

Theory: Make sure it's an important enough of a violation to warrant the theory. This should not be kicked prematurely.

Conditionality: I get irritated when more than 2 off-case arguments are conditional because I feel like it turns the debate into a "see who can cover everything the fastest" match instead of a "use evidence and logic to prove why you're right" match. I also think multiple worlds theory is argumentatively lazy.

Disclosure: I do not vote off of disclosure theory. Good teams should be able to use their topic education and research as well as their argumentative and persuasive skills to engage in and refute cases that they've never seen before. Disclosure undermines critical thinking and creativity.

TFA LD:Avoided frivolous definition arguments. Off-case arguments are great.

Congress:Please don't just tell me how a bill won't solve the problem, argue against general purpose of the bill.Use evidence and clash with other people in the room.

Kapil Nikhra Centennial HS 6 rounds

Blake Ochoa Lake Travis High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:50 AM CDT

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years (2015-2019). I did mostly LD, but have some experience in PF, Policy, and even Congress. I debated TFA, UIL, NSDA, and TOC circuits. I ran a lot of queer theory, ableism, and LatCrit.

Put me on the email chain blake.a.ochoa@gmail.com

For PF

You can run whatever you want but don't think that because I'm an LD judge I will hack for theory or other progressive arguments. If anything it is a strong uphill battle because you will have so little time to flesh out a shell. If you think genuine abuse occurred you are better off just saying that on case than trying to read a full shell.
I need the summary and final focus to write my ballot for me. Tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs. If you don't do these things then I will have to try to figure it out myself and you are less likely to like my conclusion than if you just tell me how stuff breaks down.
You can go moderately fast but if you are just trying to go fast to scare/keep your opponent from engaging you won't get good speaks.
Refer to the speaker point scale and procedural things below, most of it still applies to PF.

Be nice and have fun!

Short Version

I will vote on anything as long as I get a clear explanation of it, but frivolous theory/tricks will be a steep uphill battle for you. I did mostly K debate, but I am well experienced in LARP, Theory, and traditional stuff as well. I won’t hack for you just because you read a K. Impact everything to a framing mechanism. I like to have a very clear explanation of what argument operates on what layer of the debate. If you go over 350 wpm you run the risk of me missing arguments. I’ll say slow/clear/fast/loud twice before it affects your speaks. I give speaks based on strategy, but being polite is a side constraint. Be nice and have fun!

Speed

I did circuit debate, so I have a decent understanding of speed, that being said slow down on important texts, analytics, and dense T/Theory analysis. If you flash me evidence I don’t care how fast you read the evidence as long as you aren’t clipping. I probably cap out around 350-400 wpm, so I might miss things over that. If you make a winning argument at that speed and I miss it, that’s your fault, not mine.

Note: I’m ok with 1AR K’s, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

This was my favorite kind of argument to read in high school, but for that reason it is wise to ensure you are familiar with any K lit before you read it in front of me. I will judge based on how you articulate the argument, but I might look frustrated when you say incorrect things. I have a MUCH better understanding of identity K’s than high theory stuff, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N. I feel iffy about PIKs in general, if you want to read a PIK in front of me make it clear why perm doesn’t solve in the NC. To vote on K’s I need a clear link, impact to a framing mechanism, and a thorough explanation of the alt. If you wind up kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA, I will hold the link explanation to a higher standard.

T/Theory

Note: I’m ok with 1AR theory, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

I have a strong understanding of how T/Theory functions, but I didn’t read it much, so if you are going for nuanced/ specific offense make your analysis twice as clear as you normally would. I will definitely vote if I see clear abuse, but frivolous theory will likely get an eye roll and higher expectations of what your analysis has to accomplish. I think in-round abuse outweighs potential abuse. If you go for norm-setting arguments it will be harder or you to win the theory flow (You need to win why you winning this particular round will set a norm). I will always look to paradigm issues before I analyze what happened on the T/Theory flow proper, so don’t waste your time going for a shell if you are gonna concede drop the argument. I DO NOT like a 1AR collapse to RVIs. If this is your best option in a round, go for it but I will be bored and sad.

Tricks

I have a complicated relationship with tricks. I guess I would vote for them if they are conceded, but you won’t get very high speaks because I don’t think that there is much educational value to debates that come down to “They conceded the B subpoint of the second justification of the 5th presumption spike.” That’s gross.

Basically if you want me to vote for tricks that are piffy and serve no purpose other than to confuse your opponent, I’m not down. If you supplement tricks with something more in depth go for it.

The only scenario in which I will drop you for tricks is if your opponent has a disability that is explained and you STILL go for tricks after that explanation is made.

If I am going to vote on a DA with no advocacy associated I need a strong explanation of a solid link and an impact to a framing mechanism with reasons why it outweighs. I don’t think there is much else to say here.

I like interesting counterplan debates, meaning that the more nuanced/fleshed out your CP the better. I think it is important that the CP text itself makes sense and isn’t a paragraph long. PICs are ok but please make them distinct enough from the affirmative to keep the debate interesting (like actor changes are fine but delay/consult Cps make me sad). I need a net benefit, solvency advocate, and an extended CP text to vote on it. A conceded perm is damning so don’t concede perms please.

Phil

My understanding of philosophical frameworks is pretty average. I have a good grasp on Kant, Hobbes, Butler, and other common stuff, but if you are going beyond the normal stuff, that’s fine but PLEASE explain it clearly. Regurgitating buzzwords will make me go “>:( .” As long as I can use your framework as an impact filter, you’re good. I do, however have an ethical problem with tricky framework for the sake of being tricky for the same reason I think Tricks debates aren’t educational. To clarify, if you can’t explain the framework to a fifth grader in the time of cx, it’s too tricky. Also, if your framework justifies morally reprehensible things and you defend those things, I won’t vote for you and your speaks will suffer.

Value/Criterion

Although I did a lot of circuit debate, I still really appreciate a good value/criterion traditional debate. Framework analysis is much more important in traditional debates, but I don’t think reading a counter framework is necessary. However, I want every impact to be contextualized in terms of some criterion/standard. If you don’t articulate why your impact outweighs your opponent, I will have to intervene and then no one will be happy.

Speaks

30-29 Seriously impressed

29-28 Pretty good, you should break

27-28 Some glaring strategy issues

27-25 Your strat was DOA or you said something overtly problematic or mean

25-0 You were so rude/ problematic that it made the debate feel unsafe

If you make me think about the debate space/society in a different/enlightening way I will slightly inflate your speaks

Procedural Things

Here are my defaults, the lower on the list they are the less time it needs to change my mind

Role of the ballot is the highest layer of framework
Case can be cross applied to T/Theory
No RVIs
Reasonability
Drop the argument

I do NOT have a default for layering offs (K before T, etc) so you NEED to do this analysis in front of me

I am generally tech/truth unless you are just lying (like saying that global warming isn’t real)

I will be disappointed/drop speaks if you do this

Not clearly answering cx questions (especially status of advocacies and what layer comes first)
Are occasionally rude (sass is ok, but teasing is not)
Not giving content warnings before possibly triggering arguments are made

I will drop you if you do this

Say or do anything explicitly exclusionary
Act egregiously rude or blatantly mean towards your opponent (if you don’t know if what you do is ‘egregious’ or not it probably is)

Noah Ogata Hire 6 rounds

Jaden Kurian Panicker Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:12 AM CDT

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

Owen Phoenix-Flood A and M Consolidated High School 6 rounds

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 3 rounds

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

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

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

Topic thoughts:

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

In short:

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

he/him

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

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

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

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

In general:

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

How I decide rounds/preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical arguments:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

Abhishek Pratap Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 12, 2021 at 6:58 AM CDT

Elkins '20 | TAMU

Email: a9pratap@gmail.com

messenger is preferred

i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit

General

- Debate is a game. I consider myself to be tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact

- Speed: go as fast as you want but provide a speech doc and go slow on tags if you are faster than what is considered normal for the activity. I’ll yell clear once and allow anyone in the round to call it whenever. Just keep in mind the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something or lag behind so do it at your own risk.

- Signposting and weighing are essential

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

Progressive stuff

- I won’t say that I will not evaluate any any Ks, theory, or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these. The only exception is offensive overviews or DA’s in second rebuttal, don’t

Rebuttal

- I won’t require you to frontline in second rebuttal, anything not responded to is conceded

- Any defense that you concede to should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was read

o A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with tour argument not just “we concede to the delinks”

- Turns conceded in second rebuttal or first summary have a 100% probability and can only be beaten back by outweighing them

Summary/Final

- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.

- Case offense/ turns need to be extended by author name or source otherwise I will not extend it for you

o do- “extend jones who writes that extensions like these are good because they are easier to follow”

o don't do “remember we tell you extensions like these are good”

- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

- New evidence is only fine for frontlining in first summary, defense must be extended since they 3 mins

- For FF, a good friend told me it should include everything you tell your friends/teammates after the round is over. Write my ballot for me.

- Weighing must be made before final focus, the only type of new weighing allowed is responding to it from second summary, second summary is last chance to weigh. Personally I think link weighing is more convincing than impact weighing.

- I do not think weighing is essential in winning my ballot but it definitely helps

- For FF extensions I don’t have a high threshold, all I need is your explanation of your link story and its impact.

Other

- Evidence, I will only call for it if someone in the round explicitly tells me to. I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage. You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked (exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it)

- Speaks, I will reward them based on strategy and decorum

- Cross, it is binding and I will pay attention any crucial point has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it

Do not

- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading (includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices)

- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/xenophobic and all those ists

- Read a K-style argument dealing with identity when you aren’t a member of that group.

o i.e- dont read a fem K if you’re a male male team and ESPECIALLY dont read it on females if you’re a male male team, that is just trivializing the argument

- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other than that I agree with nilay raj and bryan with few stylistic differences

Viswa Raj Hire 6 rounds

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

**Note**

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

LOOK AT THIS | WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

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

General

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

Organization

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

Strategy

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

Framework

Framing is nice.

Crossfire

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

Weighing

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

Extensions

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

Evidence

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

Summary/FF

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

Speed

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

Speaks

27-30. Don't be a douche.

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

No bonuses for Squid Game references but I will laugh.

Progressive Debate

Not super experienced but I'll evaluate it.

Feel free to ask me any questions.

pls weigh i beg.

Mohan Rangarajan Centennial HS 5 rounds

Mukund Rao Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 22, 2021 at 4:41 PM CDT

Edit for pwsh 2021: Please make an effort to clearly say what argument you're responding to. Don't just throw out a line and expect me to instantly place it in the context of the round and the argument you want. I am very dumb and slow.

** PF Paradigm**

I debated and did alright. This should be generally listed in order of what I see as important. Email for speech docs/questions you have later is mukundrao9 at gmail

Short stuff

Tech > truth. Exceptions are obvious. Don’t be a terrible person.
Turns must be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. Turns must be extended in 1st summary. If defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal then it also has to be extended in 1st summary.
Please Weigh. I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd ff unless there’s no other weighing in the round.
Please signpost. I expect you to go line by line in every speech. If narrative debate is your thing then please tell me where to flow stuff
I am not perfect. sorry if I mess up

Evidence

Pull up evidence quickly.

1st summary/final focus

1st summary needs to extend all turns you want me to vote off of.
1st summary needs to extend defense if your opponents frontline it in 2nd rebuttal.
1st summary doesn’t need to weigh.
If you’re conceding defense to get out of a turn, it needs to be done in 1st summary.

2nd rebuttal/summary/final focus

2nd rebuttal has to respond to all the turns on your case.
If you’re conceding defense to get out of turns, that needs to be done in 2nd rebuttal.
No new evidence to frontline in 2nd summary. Read it in rebuttal.
Your “turns” in rebuttal have to actually turn their case. Please don’t read independent offense in front of me.
2nd summary needs to extend everything you’re going for.
I’ll drop speaks for new args in 2nd ff.

Extensions

Extend arguments not authors. If I don’t have well warranted arguments in summary and final focus, I won’t vote for them.
My threshold for extensions of conceded arguments is pretty low.
Extending author names will make me happy but it’s not necessary.

Disclosure

If you disclosed, tell me before the round. I’ll give you +.5 speaker points.
I won’t hack for disclosure theory. You still have to win the arg.
Don’t run disclosure theory in a round where you know you’ll win anyways.

Theory

I have a pretty high threshold on theory. I’ll probably vote for anything but I might not be happy about that and your speaks might reflect it.
Your best bet is to ask before the round if I’ll be receptive to a certain shell.
If you run theory on novices, I will tank your speaks.
Default is no RVI, but I think in pf it’s really easy to win an RVI so don’t be afraid to go for it.

Other Progressive Args

I’m a fan, but I don’t really know how to evaluate these args. You’ll probably have to do more work on framing in front of me than you would for some other judges.

Speed

I’m a pretty new judge. I can keep up with pf speed (edit: not so sure how true this is anymore), but if you go fast you are taking a risk that I miss something. I will clear you if I can’t understand you and your opponents can do the same.
If I don’t understand an argument the first time you read it, I will not vote off of it.
Send speech docs if you’re going fast.
If you go really fast on paraphrased evidence, I won’t be happy.

Weighing

I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd final focus unless there isn’t any weighing earlier in the round.

Cross

Don’t be rude. Talking over your opponent will not impress me. If I think you’re being condescending I will seriously tank your speaks.

Speaks

My speaks are based off of general strategy. They’re not based off of speaking skills or presentation (except if you’re mean)

Misc.

Pointing out an argument doesn’t have a warrant is terminal defense. I’ll be less likely to disregard an unwarranted argument unless you point it out. Don’t take that chance.
Explain why non-responsive arguments are non-responsive.
If you have any questions before the round, don’t be afraid to ask.
If there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you, please tell me.
Pause when you switch flows please!!
Clarity of impact is not a weighing mechanism.

Neha Satish Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

About me: I am pursuing a PhD in Chemistry at UT Austin. I competed in PF on the national circuit for 3 years as well as the Austin circuit. I want to preface that if there is any way at all that I can make this round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. I did graduate in 2020 so it has been a few years since I've debated so keep that in mind.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, but that doesn't mean I vote on arguments that aren't fleshed out and blipply extended. I will vote on the least mitigated link chain, with a heavily weighed impact. A debate round should mimic a funnel, meaning that arguments should be collapsed on as the round progresses. It's also helpful if both you and your partner develop a narrative from the beginning of the round. Be sure to signpost as well as give me a clear road map before speeches. And if you say anything sexist, ableist, racist, etc expect an L25.

Speed: If you are going to spread send your speech docs to nehasatish510@gmail.com, also be sure to be aware of your speed around less experienced debaters

Framework: If you read a framework, be sure to actually bring it up as the round progresses, don't just not mention it again after constructive. In general, if a framework isn't provided to me I will default util.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should frontline offense especially turns.

Summary: Please weigh and collapse. Anything you want me to vote on should be mentioned in summary. Make it clear by this point in the round which arguments you are going for.

Final Focus: Final focus should mirror the summary speech.

Weighing: Dropping jargon such as we outweigh on magnitude/scope/timeframe without explaining/warranting anything to me does not count as weighing. I prefer when you explain why magnitude>scope or timeframe>magnitude, explain why your weighing mechanism should be preferred over your opponents. If you don't weigh I will be forced to do it for you and that means I will have to intervene which I'd rather not do.

Evidence: Be sure you aren't misinterpreting the author's intent. Make sure you can pull up your evidence if your opponents ask for it. Don't do any crazy debater math because if your opponents can't verify that it makes the round un educational. Please be honest with your evidence. If you need me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me in your speech. I won't ask to see any evidence unless you explicitly tell me to because I believe it promotes judge intervention.

Cross: Just relax and don't be rude. If you need me to evaluate something from cross, be sure to mention it in your speech.

Speaks: Speaks are based on clarity and strategy. Please be kind to your opponents as there is a difference between being assertive versus overly aggressive and rude. +1 speaks if you make me laugh.

Theory/K's/CP's: I don't have much familiarity with progressive arguments because as a debater I always debated substance. If you do decide to run theory make sure it is warranted and merited, don't just read it as a means to mess with your opponents. If you run theory I will evaluate it as the most important argument in the round, and be sure to really explain it, and remember I don't have much experience with evaluating it. Although I will vote off of progressive arguments, please don't run progressive arguments on a clearly less experienced debater/novice.

Finally, debate is a stressful activity in itself so please be respectful and be kind to your opponents and have fun:) Please always feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round!

Rylan Schendel L C Anderson High School 3 rounds

Katelynn Shadman Colleyville Heritage High School 3 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

pronouns: she/her/hers

tl;dr (pf)

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

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

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

tl;dr (cx)

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

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

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

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

welcome to my paradigm:

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

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

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

(please weigh. please, please, please weigh)

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

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

- terminalize impacts

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

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

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

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

pf specific:

- quality > quantity

- tech > truth

- default util

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

rebuttal:

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

- 2nd rebuttal: pls frontline offense

summary:

- if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, defense is not sticky

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

- please weigh (pls, pls, pls)

final focus:

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

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

crossfire:

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

progressive args (pf)

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

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

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

evidence:

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

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

Priti Shah Centennial HS 5 rounds

RJ Shah Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 4:36 PM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

Background: I did PF for four years in the Texas and National Circuits. Qualified for TFA State three times and Gold TOC three times, clearing at both. I formerly coached for Strake Jesuit in Houston and served as the tournament director for the Strake Jesuit PFRR from 2018-2022. I was heavily influenced by policy debate, so I generally agree with their debate norms.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. I evaluate tech>truth only. I am tabula rasa, meaning you can read any argument as wild as you want and I will vote on it as long as it is warranted and not offensive. I mainly did LARP/traditional debate but also have experience debating theory and Ks, so you can run whatever you want. However, I only vote on arguments I understand, so I am more impressed by PF and policy-esque arguments more so than LD. Content wise, I strongly prefer in-depth substance over random off-case debate. I believe that my role as a judge is to be an educator and a norm-setter. In a nutshell, I take from Andy Stubbs in that I vote for the team with the strongest link into the highest layer of offense in the round.

Disclosure/Chains: Disclosing to the NDCA PF wiki is the only way to get above 29 speaks. Tell me if you disclose. If you are sharing docs or spreading, use Speechdrop, flash drive, or email chain.

Evidence: Cut cards > paraphrased. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if it is contested. For citations, I just need author name and year. Misconstruction of evidence will result in lower speaks, based on how flagrant it is.

Speed: Clarity>Speed. If you are clear, go as fast as you want. Slow down on author names, tags, and analytical arguments in case/rebuttal. Then, since I would be familiarized with your evidence, you can speed up summary/FF. Not the biggest fan of spreading; if you do, send docs. If you do spread, it must be cut card and not paraphrased evidence.

Style: Line by line debate only. Extend by author name and sign-post. Implicate all offense in terms of how it affects the ballot. Sign-post.

Speaker Points: Speaks are based off of in-round strategy only. Everyone starts with a 28 and I'll go from there. 29.0+ for disclosing only.

Misc: Speech times are set. One team is aff and one team is neg. I only vote for one team. I only down one team. No double wins or double losses unless instructed by tab. Speeches are set i.e. first speaker gives case and summary. Fundamental rules are set.

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

CX: I'm okay with open CX meaning your partner can join in to clarify answers. You can also both agree to use the rest of cross as prep time.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal just has to answer turns on case, not defense. Don't read a blipstorm of paraphrased responses or card dump; I either won't be able to flow it or won't feel comfortable voting on it. Not impressed by irrelevant DAs that don't actually engage the aff. Depth>Breadth. I like analytics especially when they implicate cards. You can read overviews, new advantages, add-ons, uniqueness updates, link boosters etc., but they must be based off of case or directly answer your opponent.

Summary: First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but must extend turns. Second summary has to extend defense and answer turns. Turns conceded out of second rebuttal are considered dropped for the round. Most (preferably all) new implications must be made in summary. I am fine with advantage add-ons and link boosters in summary, but I would like it more if these are read in rebuttal if possible.

Final Focus: This is the speech you call out drops and implicate the stuff extended in summary. Second FF should not have too many new weighing/implications. Anything outrageously new in 2FF will not be evaluated. It's subjective, but you'll know if something is too new in 2FF. Just weigh and implicate here.

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 very comfortable and 5 unfamiliar) of how I feel about judging these arguments:

Framework: 1; I like it. Introduce in case.

Kritiks: 3; No high theory. I like topical Ks. K affs and Reps Ks are fine too. I care most about the strength of the alt when it comes to Ks.

Theory: 2; My defaults are CI>Reasonability and no RVIs. Still tell me what I should prefer. I don't like friv theory. I default T>K.

T: 3; I default drop the argument. I default T>K.

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

Plans/CPs: 1; Tell me why the CP is competitive. Solvency advocates help. I don't like multi-planked CPs.

PICs: 3; Same as CPs but you must also provide a net benefit.

PIKs: 5; Not a fan. No experience with this.

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

Misc: I'm not too familiar with arguments like permissibility, skep, presumption etc. so I will try my best to evaluate them, but my understanding and threshold for response are fairly low.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

David Slaughter Bellaire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 8, 2021 at 7:58 AM EDT

I am sometimes asked prior to the beginning of a round if I might offer any additional insight into my paradigm or I might be asked a question pertaining to what I might identify as key voting issues. I do hope all of you take the time to read through all of the paradigms posted as they are for your benefit. I might argue that if you do that in advance it should help you determine what each of us is looking for. For the record, I do have an extensive background in the forensic world of debate at both the high school and college level. I debated for Bellaire High School from 1973 to 1976 where I learned to win quite often and for four plus years on a full debate scholarship at Houston Baptist University. I competed in high school and in college in policy debate (CX) and competed at a national level during my college years. Although it's been awhile since those days filled with stress and with competition, I have been judging off and on the past 12 years and I certainly have a few opinions to share with you perhaps best referred to as some friendly advice.

Like any good judge ought to insist upon during any round, my decision is based upon what the contestants themselves argue during the round, based upon extensions advanced to the flow and of course based upon what does persuade me or does appear most compelling at the end of the round. I do actively take down cites on most evidence read during a round and respectfully, I will not need a road map from you. That's probably helpful though for you guys to share between you. By now surely we all know that there should be no new arguments presented during rebuttals. I would also hope that debaters at all levels understand and fully embrace the notion that competition during a debate as a battle of wits ought to come down to winning arguments that can be proven and are linked quite reasonably. In my own mind, it ought to be fairly clear for me to see by the end of a round what the important voting issues are and why. I suggest trying to limit repeating what you have already said and instead focus upon extending your own case and or arguments as your key arguments. Any success during the round should be sought through purposeful and thoughtful clash with your opponents on the flow. I tend to look for and typically best follow teams that extend effectively in ways in which I can still flow where it belongs. I tend to defer to the team who best persuasively convinces me that their intended plan of action is much better than the other based upon evidence, reasoning and logic.

I am also asked if I can handle a fast speed or for that matter, the flow. I try never to be rude when I might retort in response that there is simply no way they or anyone else could ever be any faster than he and I were while debating the likes of Harvard, Georgetown etc. in that college setting I mentioned. Nevertheless, speed can still kill a good argument due to a lack of application, lack of explanation or simply because it was unintelligibly spit out. At high speed your killer evidence may indeed just become lost upon the deaf ears of a lay judge or even upon the perky ears of seemingly competent judges doing their very best to follow you. Your successes will be most often determined by you, your style and by your unique ability to fully connect the dots on the flow for all to see. You must be prepared to make your evidence and arguments count with great force in such a way that it sticks with your judge. I do accept most reasonable arguments as presented during a round especially those that are well defended with evidence, with logic and sound reasoning. I believe strongly in a professional courteous exchange at all times during a round, especially during crossfire. Cross fire is certainly not the time to keep on arguing with your opponent thinking they will agree that you are going to win. We all accept that you will probably never agree with the other side on this day of battle (until you must debate the opposite side of the flip), but use your CX time not to help set the record straight for everyone but instead to win. Utilize this precious time to seek out and gain needed clarification providing clarity for your own purposes. Responses given during cross fire are binding unless dropped or explained in context. If properly employed crossfire time can certainly make a difference in the result of the round.

Let me state it more clearly, if you are rude, obnoxious or loud during crossfire exchanges you do rub most judges the wrong way. Lastly, you might be surprised how many debaters do not do a very good job telling me as a judge why I should vote for them. Typically they insist that I must vote their way. Tell me why and keep telling me why. It begins with those first two constructive speeches in which clash is fully expected and undertaken. For the record, I do not give decisions or feedback at the end of a preliminary round, but of course I do during elimination rounds as allowed. My ballot will generally always make it crystal clear to both parties why I voted the way I did, agree or disagree. Debate is and always has been intended to be a fun, exciting activity and of course, highly competitive. Highly competitive though is not defined by talking over someone during cross fire or by being rude to another or by speaking much faster and much louder than others. I view forensic activities as a whole to be in large part preparation for your future endeavors in life with the potential to help one distinguish between what is true in theory and what might actually happen in the real world.

In terms of student Congress and Senate competition, I have judged those events often over the past 12 years and I do enjoy it immensely. It is still all about the numbers if you desire to win at a high level so naturally it does matter how many bills you are prepared to address with substance and it matters what you have to say about the subject. Your ability to effectively and respectfully question your peers effectively when called upon is critical to help garner a judges attention. It might help if you try and visualize Congress being in session and accept that you are literally debating a bill on the floor. Respect for each other, your demeanor and your own ability to participate is vital to making a great impression on your judge. Embrace that role and allow your efforts from the minute you walk into the room be dedicated to collaborating with others alongside representatives you hope might be persuaded to vote for the bill you choose to defend. If you go into a student congress event be prepared to participate, that is why you are in the session itself.

Individual events tend to be speeches or performances where you are on your own for the most part. It's important if you do want to place and compete that you make every effort to most effectively utilize the time you have been given to speak. A short speech is just that, it's short and often way too short. Proper use of mannerisms, natural body movements and practicing a deliberate and confident style used to deliver your piece is critical to success. Judges do tend to remember a genuine smile, a look or feel feel of sincerity and almost always naturally connect to the dynamic use of voice, dialog and diction patterns. It does not matter where you are in the speaking rotation. I can assure you, judges are waiting in earnest looking for you to stand right up their and knock their socks off so just do it.

Raj Solanki Hire 6 rounds

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

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

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

take flex prep if needed

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

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

Jeffrey Stirl William P. Clements High School 6 rounds

Ramprasad Sundaram Centennial HS 5 rounds

Jason Sykes Coppell High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 4:52 AM CDT

About

Director @ Coppell
Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com

Basics

This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments.
I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Theory/Topicality

I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, but I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
On questions of framework, USFG, etc. I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change.
Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, for example, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Defaults/Disads

If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, and these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.

Kritiking

The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

Congress, specifically

I have a surprising amount of congress experience, including placing at nats in HS and coaching a TOC champion. That said, I'm not sure I can say a lot here that doesn't likely seem intuitive to most.
Remain active in the chamber. Move things along. Stay engaged.
All speech & debate should be rigorous. I'm interested in quality of research and depth of content. If you're one of those kids who makes fun of prep that happened before the round, I'm curious why you're here.
PO - be efficient, kind, firm, and cover any unfortunate mistakes well. Be aware, though, that mistakes with respect to precedence or procedure can be devastating. Also, speak. I loved to PO, but it's hard for me to imagine winning a big tournament without ever giving a speech.

Nahom Tulu Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 11:21 AM EDT

Selam, I'm Nahom

** i will auto down any black trauma centered cases (if ur not black) reading stru viol arguments is fine and implicating racism as an impact is great but dont spell out trauma for shock value**

I debated at Hendrickson for my last 2 yrs of highschool

tech>truth (but pls dont abuse this)

Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal if u wanna go for it (U DONT NEEDA EXTEND IN REBUTTAL)

Defense is sticky

2nd summary frontlining threshold is high, if ur partner doesn't frontline defense in rebuttal that's fine, but that means ur frontlining must be INSANE, 99% of the time I wont accept it.

Preferences: pls dont read trix imma be so lost, theory is fine if theirs a real abuse, disclosure hurts small schools, paraphrase at ur own discretion, but if its abusive then im down to vote of the T

not super familiar with K's but if it makes sense ill be down to vote off it

speeds fine for me, dont ignore judges paradigms that say not too fast. If your opponents ask for a speech doc, give it to them idc how fast ur going, they may need it for personal reasons.

Clash is cool but I have a soft place in my heart for unique args (not squirrely, theirs a difference) also pls weigh like crazy, and implicate everything

Summary is the most important speech in the round, FF is just for show, unless yall messed up in this round, I shud have my decision by summary, provided both sides weigh/frame the round, otherwise one of yall will think im judge screwing

sum other tips

1. be nice in rounds, rip em a new one all u want, but make sure they're giving u the same energy or u just look dum, I like a nice aggressive crossfire, but walk the line between destroying someone's args and destroying their sense of self carefully, bc (from experience) its a dangerous tightrope that you may not want to walk

2. EXTEND WARRANTS, frontlines are not extensions

3. Weighing/Framing OV in rebuttals r super strategic. weigh bc it'll make me happy, and tbh even if ur barely accessing an arg, if u win weighing that says its the most important, U WIN... for the most part (be careful bc this is diff from other PF debaters that prefer cleaner extensions over weighing strats and link ins)

4. Concede the small things to win the narrative, stats don't matter if ur narrative is bomb, evidence debates are boring, which means if u make it an ev debate I will make the standard for good ev rlly rlly high, and if neither of you have offense speaks will tank and I will default to whatever team i want to

4. Pls be funny, humor is ur greatest tool, joking around in cross and making ur opponents look dum is v enjoyable esp when ur opponents r being rlly aggressive.

5. Any isms (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc) = u lose + i tank ur speaks + i tattle to ur coach

6. Don't be buttholes with theory, ill know if ur just tryna win a round rather then effectively create change, and ill hate u for it. Also dont be hypocritical with theory, idc what ur shell says if u didnt disclose at every round ever on the wiki u better not read disclosure later that year (*cough cough* reading disclosure at the TOC for the first time ever), no shot im buying it.

7. Do NOT, and I'll repeat this to make sure this is super clear, DO NOT read structural violence-based arguments without a clear, nuanced and thoughtful understanding of the oppression that exists. I will never accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this, logic-based warranting is key; for your own sake do not assume my political views/skin color will make me any more attracted to these types of arguments, in fact, I would very much rather prefer you have no understanding of the issues and not read this argument than have a shallow understanding and read these types of arguments. If I sense BS you better believe I will call you out on it.

8. Take risks, ill reward it (collapsing on a turn)

9. Have fuuunsies, debate is a game, winning and losing r aspects of the game, dont take it to seriously, just enjoy urself in the moment and be respectful of one another

if u wanna talk/postround/add me to the chain my email is: tulu.nahom@gmail.com

Joseph Uhler Westlake 2 rounds

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

I did not do debate in high school or college.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns: he/him

Gabi Valdez Hire 6 rounds

Rocco Vo Hire 6 rounds

Conner E. Williams Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 1, 2021 at 4:02 AM CDT

JBHS '20; GWU '24

Pronouns He/Him

Conflicted with James Bowie and Coppell

Bold=TLDR

- for questions/comments/concerns/for the email-chain you can reach me at williams.conner.professional20@gmail.com

This is largely copied from Andy Stubb's paradigm.

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact.

Progressive arguments* and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

*detail of my progressive knowledge/experience below

-Lay debate: easy, love it

-theory: the ones that are common in PF I'm very familiar with, if it's something I probably haven't seen, just explain it well.

-K's: I like K's, but I don't know ANY lit. That doesn't mean I can't evaluate a well-explained argument.

-Non-t K-aff's(?): see^, but I find them really interesting and will still do my best to evaluate it.

-tricks: I didn't have a pleasant introduction to these, so I'm fine with never returning. If you run them, I will probably be sad, but the flow is the flow ig.

-I literally do not know what the progressive argument hierarchy is, so tell me! if the round has 2 tricks, a non-t k-aff, and disclosure, tell me which order to evaluate these things in, or I don't want to hear it when I do it incorrectly.

My three major things are:

1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. The exception to this is clean drops, idc how terrible the warranting of an argument is if it's conceded.

2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you.

3. An extension IS: uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. An extension is NOT any of those things on their own. If you fully extend the link but drop the impact, fantastic, you have successfully won a link into nothing. If you extend the impact but not the link, congratulations, I now have a mystery impact floating in the air that cannot and will not be weighed

On the topic of floating impacts, PLEASE weigh. if one side is running homelessness and one side is running food insecurity for example, tell me why I should vote on your argument; if you don't, this begs intervention and you can't be mad if we disagree on which one is more important.

PF specific:

-You have to frontline offense in the second rebuttal.

-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you

-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited. If your opponents are unfamiliar /uncomfortable with theory (maybe don't read it but if you really believe there was a violation I get it) I will probably prefer reasonability (sue me.) If both sides are familiar with theory then competing interps are chill.

Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc. I simply do not think it's fair to potentially determine breaks/seeding off of pure speech clarity, ESP with the current digital-only world we're living in.

- if you make a link turn, you should explain what the consequence of having access to their impact does for you, otherwise what is the point. Also if you end up going for the turn you must extend the uniqueness, the (turned) link, and the impact. just saying "we turned their x argument so that's offense for us" does not do anything for you.

Misc.

- I'm open to being post-rounded, I think it's good for the community. If I can't defend my decision then I shouldn't have made it. That being said I am not open to being harassed simply bc you disagree with what I said. Additionally, if this goes on for a while or honestly if it's super late at night I'll probably say that I'll be happy to speak with you at a later time/date and/or give you my email in case you have further questions.

-if there is literally not a single way to vote I'll default to whatever side upholds the squo (this is almost always neg but the wording of some recent resolutions has been odd) this is because the aff (usually) has the burden of proving that a change is beneficial, not just neutral.

-defense is not sticky

Preston Williams Austin SFA High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 22, 2021 at 10:00 AM CDT

I debated PF for 3 years at Westlake High School in Austin, Texas. I competed on the national circuit for 2 years.

Tech > Truth

1. 'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework and meta-weighing. I am not as familiar with kritiks, theory, and tricks but am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.

2. Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. I don't agree with 'sticky defense', I think it's a dated practice. If there is a conceded substance argument my threshold for extensions is low—but it does still exist. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through final focus and summary it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extent what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.

3. Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' two times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down. Ask for my email before round/speech and send me a speech doc if necessary.

4. Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two args I default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing I will be forced to make the decision on my own.

5. Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.

6. Presumption. If I am forced to I will presume NEG unless there are presumption arguments present and extended. I am much more comfortable presuming NEG than trying to weasel out some offense for a team that didn't actually extent their arg(s) properly.

7. Evidence. To be completely honest I have not decided where I stand on evidence yet. I do not see myself calling for evidence after round to help make my decision. However, if you believe your opponents are misrepresenting their evidence please ask me to review it.

8. Don't be (too) mean. Please be a decent human being. I understand the pressure of debate and have seen how rounds can get heated. I enjoy the competitive aspects of debate because I think it makes the rounds harder. I will, however, dock your speaks if you are clearly extremely rude. I will give you an L with 25s if you are blatantly offensive by using targeted rhetoric.

9. I disclose. I will always disclose. If time allows, I will always give oral RFDs. I prefer oral feedback because it allows for questioning. Post round me if you want to, I do not care. I think post rounding is good to some extent and it won't change the way I think about you or your team in the future. I will stand by every decision I've made and will ever make. I keep a decent flow and am comfortable explaining my decision. Post rounding will obviously not change my decision but instead should help you and I both learn.

Audrey Wilson Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 12, 2021 at 3:00 PM EDT

1. As a judge, It is a priority of mine to not let bias and predisposed opinions of topics to influence how I judge a competitor. I do not want to award winners just because I agreed with their side beforehand. Fairness comes from a clean slate beforehand and a newfound opinion after the round. I value the the time and effort you put in to debate such challenging topics so I try my best to be someone that really trusts and listens to what you say.
2. I value respect over anything. Respect the judge of course, but also respect your opponent. Losing a round is not worth an attitude of disrespect. I have seen too many rounds recently where people talked over the other and it got ugly. I do not like that. Also remember, this is something that should be considered fun. Enjoy yourselves.
3. it is often thought of to take debate as way more serious than it should be. Humor, puns, and side jokes are ideal. I get bored if it’s all talk and no games. Give a joke or two. Even if other jokes do not like this, it makes it more lively for me.
4. paint me a picture. As a future lawyer, I need to see a picture and a concrete image of your plan and ideas rather than having to try to imagine something in my mind. That makes me get lost in the “what if’s” and “could be‘s.
5. Imagine yourself as a policy maker or politician rather than debate competitor. Convince me that you know how to get the job done and that you know what you are talking about. It is more convincing than talking like a student trying to win a debate competition.
6. Refer to me as “judge”. I am nice, you can make conversation with me. I love meeting competitors and hearing about what they do because it is something that I used to do.
7. pace of speaking is a huge part of how I judge. If you talk too fast, I get lost. A little goes a long way when you keep your pace under control.
8. Snark is okay, don’t be a jerk, please.

9. Know and understand your evidence. Become an expert of it.
10. Prove to me that there ARE flaws and that you CAN fix them.

Amanda Yates Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 6, 2021 at 9:59 AM CDT

About Me: I currently attend Texas A&M University, and have competed in Public Forum for 3 years. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. Pronouns: she/her

LD and CX: Please treat me like a mom haha.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, I will flow however I appreciate clear signposting and a roadmap before your speech. Also if you say anything sexist, racist, ableist etc. expect an L25.

Trigger Warnings: If you are planning on running something surrounding a sensitive topic, actually message your opponents before the round or read a trigger warning at the beginning of your speech and give your opponents a chance to opt out, and actually read a different constructive if they ask you to.

Speed: I can flow speed, but if your gonna spread send the doc. If you think something is super important and round defining make sure it is said at an understandable pace. If you are spreading against a clearly less experienced team I will dock your speaks.

How I vote: I am of the belief that a debate round should look like a funnel, as the round progresses the number of arguments decrease but those that remain are deep, well-warranted, weighed and clearly extended through all speeches. I will vote on the best weighed, least mitigated impact, with the clearest and most warranted link chain. Develop a narrative starting in constructive and continuing throughout all your speeches.

I think defense in the first rebuttal is sticky (first summary does not have to extend it unless it is frontlined in the second rebuttal), and require the second rebuttal to respond to offense on their case.

I am tech over truth in most cases- however, I won't vote off something that you blippily extend and you haven't fleshed out and explained, even if the other team doesn't respond to it.

Weighing: I hate hate hate being forced to intervene and only vote off of impacts that are weighed- meaning explain to me why your impacts, as well as links, are the most strong and the most important to consider in the round. Also I don't consider dropping weighing jargon as weighing. Do not say we short circuit/outweigh on magnitude/timeframe without warranting WHY you outweigh that is NOT WEIGHING. Explain why your weighing mechanism is better than your opponents if you have competing mechanisms.

Extensions: This means in order for me to evaluate your argument, I need a clear explanation of the whole link chain leading down to the impact in summary/ff. If you just read me a card name in rebuttal/summary/final focus without reading the argument, and the warrant behind it, I won't evaluate the argument. The same concept applies to impacts, if you skip to them without explaining to me how you got there, I won't vote off of them.

Cross: I won't vote off of anything in cross unless you bring it up in a speech, but if you are overly aggressive or rude I will dock speaker points.

Summary: I LOVE a good big-picture summary, but if that's not your style I'm okay with line by line too, but please remain clear. Weigh!!!! First summary doesn't have to extend all defense, but if it is frontlined in second rebuttal, or is super important and round defining extend it, also respond to turns.

Final Focus: Voters are appreciated, I won't vote off an argument that wasn't extended in summary.

Speaks: I start at a 27.5 and based off of both strategic decisions in the round as well as clarity, sportsmanship (be nice) I will either go up or down from there. But if your opponents are being sassy, you can be sassy back as long as you aren't rude. Extra points if you make me laugh-making fun jokes/puns related to the topic like fun contention names, or quoting vines/tik toks in speeches or crossfire. Read the room, if your opponents are clearly less experienced or uncomfortable with the attitude you are presenting I will dock speaks.

Evidence: I won't call for it unless you ask me to, or if you haven't weighed and I have to intervene, or like if it's really contested or something. Also paraphrasing is okay as long as you're not misconstruing the evidence and don't extrapolate values from a piece of evidence using "debater math" it's unfair to your opponents and not educational. If you take forever to find evidence I will dock speaks.

Framework: I default util (the greatest good for the most amount of people) unless you read something different, don't read a framework in constructive unless you are going to bring it up in your later speeches as a weighing mechanism

Theory/K's/Progressive Arguments: I don't have enough familiarity with these for me to comfortably vote off of them. If the shell is super clear and extended through the whole round I will evaluate it just like any other argument, but I don't have enough technical experience to be comfortable making decisions on progressive rounds that are super close, so if you don't want a weird decision just don't run the argument. Make sure it is MERITED, meaning you aren't reading it just to trip up your opponents and waste everybody's time. I will dock speaks if you are running something progressive on a clearly less experienced team.

Finally, Debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, please treat it as such and not scream at each other or make me stressed out, if you have any questions, message me or ask me before round.

My email is bellamanday@gmail.com

Sanjitha Yedavalli Hendrickson High School 6 rounds

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

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

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. PLEASE signpost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.

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

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

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

Login to Tabroom

TFA State

2021 — Online, TX/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges