Obligatory flex about where I went to high school, how well I did at debate, where I'm going to college, how many years I've been coaching, how well my students have done, what I do professionally, etc. etc. etc. (for realz tho, I debated mostly pf for 4 years, some parli, some worlds, some congress)

email - caleb.brobst78@gmail.com

I'm an econ and political science major so while I'll go by the flow, you'll def hear about it post-round if u bs basic economics

there's a tl;dr at the bottom that tells you pretty much everything you need to know, but I just feel like longer paradigms that detail things are better than shorter paradigms, also I kinda just keep adding to this so there's definitely some repeat things(those are probably important) and some ramblings as I literally edit this whenever I think about debate
General housekeeping

- include me in the email chain plz, it makes it easier for me to look at cards cause the one's you'll contest are likely to be the ones you called

- if online, idc what you wear, if ur camera is on or not, try not to abuse prep time

- I also don't care what u wear if we're in person

- U can prep while the other side gets their cards, this promotes having ur evidence readily available, which u should so I don't get annoyed - leads to drop in speaks

- I don't care what side you sit on, I'd prefer if you faced me during your speeches

- Have cards/pdf ready, if you give the cut card of a study without the methodology and the other team wants the methodology you better google the card and get the methodology

- I'll time prep/speeches, after time for speeches is done, finish your sentence quickly, anything new I'll stop flowing and dock speaks

- Be nice, Ik debate is inherently aggressive so I understand things get heated, but attack arguments, not people, if you do attack people, I'll drop you, give you the lowest speaks tab will let me, and give the other team double 30s

- keep your computers/cards ready for me to read after the round, I will only call for them if the other team compares evidence/you guys disagree on what the card says. That is the only time I will intervene in a round. See later on evidence.

- During Cross I normally write out comments, but concessions in cross are def important so if they concede a warrant talk about it in speeches

- Don't say ur opponents dropped something when they didn't or that they didn't read something if they did. Idk if people think judges won't notice but I'm flowing, I will, and it will def tank ur speaks like nothing else and if its a close round might end up being part of my decision. Its not a good strat, its lazy debating

Here are some things about the round - General

- If you say that your opponents dropped something when they didn't, I won't drop you but your speaks will be significantly docked

- I won't flow any cards or new arguments brought up in final

- Please weigh, idc if it is at the top, the bottom, or in between but weigh with clear taglines, I don't think buzzwords (i.e. scope, risk, timeframe,) can be used instead of warrants, but I think they make weighing clearer for everyone in the round

- In terms of things that I like weighing wise, love uniqueness, I think probability is still offense, I'd make some sort of warrant why I should prefer it but in general I view it as common sense/how many alt causes is there for ur impact

- tell me why you're weighing mech matters, this decides a lot of close rounds and makes everything easier

- I know the norm is prefer warranting of evidence, but if your evidence sucks, (too old, not specific, wrong methodology) I won't buy it as long as the other team is smart enough to call for the card and tell me it sucks, (hint, hint, call for cards)

- I can handle some speed but if I don't know what you're saying, it doesn't go on the flow, and it doesn't get voted off of, (you'll be able to tell I don't know what it is, I'll stop flowing)

- Paraphrasing is good, you still have to have the cut card or be able to highlight the source where you find it from but in research, you almost never cite actual cut cards and instead paraphrase it, also makes ur read ur sources, and people who are going to paraphrase badly are also going to miscut cards

- Theories that I will for sure vote for: Social Distancing theory, mask wearing theory if we're in person

- Theories that you'll have to work hard to convince me of: Paraphrase, disclosure if reading it against small-school teams, if ya'll are from big schools or are super successful on the circuit you should probably be disclosing cause then you can access ur impact of norm-setting cause debaters look at what u do if no one knows who u r then idk how you're changing norms but if you have a warrant I'll buy it

- In really messy debates I find myself voting on a narrative, a lot of times this happens when teams don't collapse on a single thing in summary/1Rs

- That being said I'll def vote on turns if they're dropped so ya know, but if you're going to extend a turn and you read a de-link on it you'll need to tell me why you're de-link no longer matters

- I.E. the best way to read turns if you're going to go for them in front of me is read uniqueness and then read a turn, weigh the turn preferably when you read it or in the speech after it, or make the de-links not compatible with the turn

- I think rounds tend to come down to either me voting for the team that has offense because one team didn’t frontline sufficiently enough or both teams getting some access to their offense and me voting for whatever team wins the weighing battle, the second one is a lot more common

PF Specific

- Please only extend one case argument in summary, that doesn't mean I won't vote off of the other if you extend more than one, but unless the other team didn't give a rebuttal, extend one

- extend the best piece of defense/offense on the other team's case, please don't card dump at any time

- the first rebuttal can extend defense to first final focus only, but you have to frontline any response the other team gave it

- 2nd rebuttal has the obligation to frontline any offense first rebuttal reads, preferably collapse or start collapsing in the second rebuttal

- No new cards after rebuttals unless they directly respond to an argument the other team ran, I'm more lenient on this for the first summary, less for second

- Don't run theory, K's, or CPs unless the other team is ok with it and have agreed before hand

Parli/WSD

- Empirics are generally good

- Have warrants to back them up

- The negs job is to disprove the aff meaning that aff has the burden 51-49

- that doesn't mean I won't vote on off case neg args, aff u need to respond to them otherwise if they're comparatively weighed vs urs then u lose

- Don't bring up new args in the second speech if you have 4 speeches, its stupid, more lenient on this for aff cause they go first, less on neg (if u bring it up and don't go for it I won't drop u but I'll def give u a low-point win, esp if its a well-developed argument)

- Please weigh, esp in these events, and weigh links because often times it comes down to clashing warrants so give me a way to evaluate them

LD/Policy

- I probably shouldn't be judging this event unless its a local, but I know how to flow so if u put it on the flow and give me a way to evaluate it then I'll vote on it

- I have no conceptions about whether or not substance or theory or whatever comes first so please warrant this out if you're going for something like this otherwise you'll probably be mad when I vote on substance rather than ur high tech super cool theory shell

- If ur spreading u have to send a doc, I don't mind spreading or speed but if I can't hear you I can't flow it and then I can't vote on it, with that being said I'm not super well versed in flowing from doc as a judge

- Theory, K's, CPs, and other stuff here are all the norms so that's fine

- Frameworks are just weighing at the top

- Potlical DA's are normally kinda stupid, there was one that a lot of teams ran about how Trump passing Medicare for all would cause him to get re-elected and I thought that was pretty stupid, I mean they're cool in theory but trying to reduce all of American politics down to one link is probably not a smart idea but if you can do it and the other team doesn't respond to it then hats off to u

Congress

- each speech should respond in some way to the speech before it

- Congress is the time for well warranted, well researched nuanced stock arguments, I don't want to hear anything squirrely, no way out there stuff

- funding arguments are generally not the move unless there's a very specific alt that you can prove the money is being pulled from, just saying hey this money could do something instead isn't enough

- I love a good intro, wack a mole is pretty good, anything that ties into the topic is also nice

- Don't fake evidence, its easy to get away with but its annoying

- If you weigh, do any type of link comparison, impact comparison, or higher-level analysis I'll be very pleased

- Questioning probably doesn't play a huge role in my ballot, I probably use questioning to compare people with similar speeches, you won't win with better questioning over someone if you had worse speeches than them

- Don't be afraid to do straight rebuttals, as long as you attack the idea its ok, call people out by name cause its easier to take notes that way

- this is probably the only event I'm truth over tech, only cause there's not really a flow so

- Idk what to do if ur POing, expect somewhere in the 2-5 spot depending on how well you do, if you really suck I won't be afraid to rank u last

General Judging Philosophy

tech > truth, if you say the sky is purple and the other team doesn't respond to it, the sky is purple, this also means for extinction first, econ growth bad, etc. type args, I will buy them if explained well

Give me that sweet sweet uniqueness meta weighing

Idk if this will apply, but I've seen a lot of political DAs, I'll buy them if well warranted, but trying to reduce all of American politics down to one issue and then ignoring the fact that politics constantly changes by the day, maybe not the move

the above statement does not include racism good, single parents bad, etc. those will 100% of the time be voted down by me

I vote off the flow and the cleanest path to the ballot which should be given to me in weighing

tl;dr tech> truth, have good evidence, weigh, and second speaking has a higher burden in responding to stuff, don't say ur opponents dropped something when they didn't

Also Idk If I said this earlier, but in super messy rounds I tend to lean more towards the side of a cleaner narrative, not saying that the other side won't win, but just something that in general helps a team in a messy round

If you don't know what something means feel free to ask, happy to help

I think rounds tend to come down to either me voting for the team that has offense because one team didn’t frontline sufficiently enough or both teams getting some access to their offense and me voting for whatever team wins the weighing battle, the second one is a lot more common

Hi! I'm a college freshman. I did PF and LD all four years of high school. I'm a pretty standard judge, I'll vote off of anything (tech>truth). I did mostly lay debate so keep that in mind.

Speed- I'm ok with speed, can't flow spreading. If I miss a lot of what you say because the audio cuts out, I'll ask after your speech. Please signpost clearly.

Cross- I'll listen, but bring up any important concessions in a speech.

Progressive args/theory- I'm not too familiar with these arguments so read them with caution. If it's really important for you to read it, just explain it thoroughly and be clear.

Other notes:

1. please weigh

2. please collapse

3. please be nice! Don't talk over your opponents during cross, don't make faces during their speeches, smile! Or I will lower your speaks >:(

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round starts!

Debate is unnecessarily stressful so have fun! :D

email: uneuner@stanford.edu