The 31st Annual Loodvitational
2021 — Online, HI/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideMira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26
Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu
In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. In my second year doing parli at Berkeley and won NPTE last year. I coached LD at James Logan last year and currently coach parli at Campolindo.
Public Forum
TL;DR:
I'm two years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you.
Front-Half:
- Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 275 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
- Evidence: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
- Cross: I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.
- Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.
Back-Half:
- Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.
- Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If nobody weighs then I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
- Final Focus: I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.
Progressive Debate:
- Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
- Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo. Love good links.
- Tricks: Big fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.
Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.
Other:
- I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
- Big fan of TKO's
- Big fan of content warnings
- Big fan of tag-teaming
- Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
Speaker Points:
Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:
- + 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
- + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
- + 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
- + 0.1 for every CX skipped
- + 0.1 for every swear word
- - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
- Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, CC good, wipeout, or any other fun impact turn
- Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
- Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
- Instant 30's if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive
I know this is short, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round
Parliamentary
TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round.
Case:
- Love it, I'm a case debater primarily.
- Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Why does your impact matter, go the extra step during prep.
- I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
- Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read.
- I love lots of warranting.
- Go for turns.
- Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.
Theory:
- Good with theory, probably the most comfortable with my decisions here.
- MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won't vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it's a super violent violation.
- I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
- I really don't understand the norm of no RVI's in parli. If a team runs theory on you, GO FOR RVI'S!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
- I'll default to CI's and DTD if no paradigm issues are read.
- I find myself leaning towards text > spirit and potential abuse > actual abuse but can be convinced for either side
Kritiks:
- While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it.
- When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
- Non generic links >>> but this isn't necessary.
- I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. T-FW/case/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's what I have the most experience in)
Other:
- Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then I'll stop flowing.
- Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
- Perms: If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
- Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
- Condo's good, but you can convince me that condo's bad.
- Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
- Big fan of content warnings
- Big fan of tag-teaming
- Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
- Collapse. Please.
- Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
- Repeat your texts or say them slowly.
Speaker Points:
Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:
- + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
- + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
- + 0.1 for every swear word
- - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
- Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
- Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
- Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)
As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.
LD/Policy
TL;DR: I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing are important. I'm most comfortable with LARP and theory, but overall I'm chill with most things that go in round and I will vote on virtually anything.
Quick Prefs:
1 - LARP
1 - Theory
3 - Tricks
3 - K v. Case/T-FW
4 - K v. K
5 (Strike) - Phil
General:
- Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in as many speeches as possible, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 275 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
- I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech
- Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
- If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
- Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
- Big fan of content warnings
- Big fan of tag-teaming
- Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
- Collapse. Please.
- Condo's good, but it's easy to convince me that condo's bad.
LARP:
- Love it, definitely the most confident in my decisions here.
- Most of my debate experience is through util! Obviously this doesn't mean that I'll drop you if you run something outside of it, but don't assume that I'll know whatever FW you run, even if it's common in LD.
- I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
- Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are.
- I love lots of warranting.
- Go for turns.
- Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.
Theory:
- Definitely prefer theory over most other prefiat arguments.
- 1AR theory is fine, but I'll listen to warrants otherwise/arguments on how to evaluate it. I probably won't vote for theory after the 1AR unless it's a super violent violation.
- I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other side shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
- From my understanding, going for RVI's isn't super common in LD/policy. If someone runs theory on you, go for RVI's!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
- I'll default to CI's and DTD if no paradigm issues are read.
- I find myself leaning towards text > spirit and potential abuse > actual abuse but can be convinced for either side
Kritiks:
- While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it.
- When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
- The more links the better, preferably have them not generic, but this isn't necessary.
- I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. T-FW/case/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's what I have the most experience in)
Other:
- Most of my tricks experience is in PF, so maybe LD/policy is different, but tricks are generally good. While you can totally run them on me, my threshold for responses are low if you're hitting a less experienced team.
- I have so little exposure to phil, please don't run it on me. It doesn't mean I won't evaluate it, but when I do evaluate it I can't guarantee a correct ballot.
Speaker Points:
Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:
- + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
- + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
- + 0.1 for every swear word
- - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
- Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.
In high school, I was primarily a PF competitor on the Local and National Circuit, so I'm down for whatever as long as you're able to properly argue it. Consider me to be a tabula rasa judge. If you give me a framework, and are able to defend it through the round, that's the mechanism that I'll use to judge.
On speed, this isn't an issue for me. However, don't try to go faster than you are physically able to, because otherwise, I will knock your speaks or even drop the argument entirely. If I can't understand what you're saying, it's pretty likely that your opponents won't either, and that's just not fair.
On evidence, if you're arguing cards against cards, give me an actual reason why your evidence here is better or why theirs is worse. Don't just say that your opponents are lying and you're not, because then I'm going to want to see the evidence to see if that's true, and that probably won't be the best for you, because I don't like having to intervene.
On cross-ex, I find this to be one of the most important parts of the rounds, but I want it to be clean. Don't speak at the same time as your opponent, but also be aware that cross is not time for making a speech, and if someone cuts you off because you're talking too long, I'm not going to be upset. Also, remember that anything you really want me to weigh from cross you should bring up in a speech and extend it through. It doesn't really matter what they said if you don't tell me why that's important in today's round.
On rebuttals, I don't require frontlining, or responding to the first rebuttal arguments in the second rebuttal, but you better be sure you're able to respond to it in summary, because if you don't I will consider it dropped, and fair game for the other side to call you out on.
On summary, you need to weigh over here. Don't just tell me why your points are good or still valid, make sure to explain to me why your points are better than your opponents. Remember magnitude, timeframe, and probability over here.
On final focus, I view this as the most important part of the round. I should be able to have ignored the entire round and know who won and lost from this speech alone. I'd like it if you collapsed in on the most important points of clash in the round, and tell me how you came out on top over here. Don't try to go for too much with too little time because that's a recipe for disaster.
On aggression, be careful over here. I was a pretty aggressive debater, and it has its ups and downs. Don't be overly cruel, but I will respect assertiveness. We all know the line here, don't cross it.
Howdy, y'all!
My name is Tarun. I did 3 years of Debate for Bentonville HS and currently compete in college. I specialized in BQ and PF and competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and have a base knowledge of Worlds. I also know a lot about speech, so that shouldn't be an issue.
General notes for all styles [PF, CX, LD, WS, BQ]
Add me to the email chain pls(taruneisen61@gmail.com)! I am tech > truth. I will buy any arguments, as long as they are extended, warranted, etc. Make sure to collapse on weak args and extend on the winning ones. I think that while FW is important, it isn't the main attraction. If you're running prog, make sure everyone is okay with it. Please don't run Trix and theory shells just to get that easy dub against a novice. I prefer debates on substance, but if it turns into a technicality debate, make sure it's good. If the round turns into a definition debate, I will give everyone 26's. Please bring up all-new cards before FF. I also will not evaluate new contentions beyond 1st AC/NC. Please signpost as well, and give a roadmap. This allows everyone to keep everything organized and allows a clear mind. All weighing and impacts should start in Rebuttal, but I will buy it in Summary if it's strong enough. Link chains should also be presented in Rebuttal and extended through FF. I am not a fan of judge intervention, so make sure the ballot is crystal clear. I will also keep time, so if you go over time, I will stop flowing. You can finish your sentence, but beyond that, I won't flow anything else. Also, speed is fine, but don't spread (unless policy). Again, don't run abusive args.
Evidence
I love evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case, make sure you have the cut card, or at the very least, the URL for me to find it. Please warrant cards and show why they are both unique and impactful. I will call for any cards that I need, so please have them handy. I always had cut cards when I competed, so please have them. Make sure the cards actually say what you're telling. If you're going to present more cards in Rebuttal and Summary, warrant them and tell me why they outweigh the other side. Make sure those cards are also cut. If you just say the card (e.g., Jones 20) and give me info, but don't warrant it and show why it actually matters, I most likely won't buy it. If the source is biased or flawed, make it an issue. I won't buy new evidence past Summary, so any significant cards have them before that.
Cross X:
Please be respectful. I don't flow CX, but I will pay attention. If you're rude or a bully, I will down your speaker points. I am also chill with flex prep, but make sure your opponents are also okay with it. This time also shows how you flourish with direct questioning, so try your best.
Weighing/Voters:
Just because you say something's a voter does not automatically make it one. Make sure you tell me why this warranted voter is crucial. I will weigh probability, magnitude, timeframe (in that order of importance). Please do all weighing starting in Rebuttal, but I will accept it if you start in summary if it is crazy important. Any beyond that will not be bought. Be sure all voters are fleshed out, warranted, all that jazz. All voters should be in Summary. You can do voters in Rebuttal, but Summary is that last chance. Please show why you outweigh the opponents. It does me and you no good to show weighing A, B, C, but not why they matter more than opp. weighing D, E, F.
Last-minute thoughts:
-I will ave. speaker points at 28.5, but will go up and down accordingly.
-If you make a joke, I will up speaker points, but it has to be good or so bad it's amazing. Any bland jokes will lose speakers.
-Any Eisen cards will raise speaks by 0.5
-If you run Texas theory shell, I will give you L20. So just don't do it.
Otherwise, I am looking forward to seeing y'all debate!
Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)
Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com
LD and PF paradigm at bottom
TL;DR
Debate is a game, do impact calc, I'm more familiar with Policy strats, clipping is bad, and clarity on analytics is important. Tech determines Truth.
F'23 Update: I'm only vaguely familiar with the topic (~15 rounds judged) so if you start using fancy econ jargon I might get lost, please slow down on analytics, especially in the T debate.
General
Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.
DA/CP
I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links are ok too if you can spin it well enough. Condo is probably good, int'l/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.
K
I'm pretty familiar with a few Ks but don't go for that many of them, barring things like Cap and Security. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.
Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism
Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason)
T
I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.
Nontraditional Affs
I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 2 or 3 times), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.
Theory
Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.
Speaks
- being creative, strategic
- clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
- efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
- if you're funny
- clear signposting!
- i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)
LD
I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.
Public Forum
I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard
Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.
send the email chain to jonahgentleman@gmail.com
Hi, I'm Jonah (he/him). I regularly competed in both LD and policy at Advanced Technologies Academy and now attend Rutgers University. My guiding philosophy when judging is that I will evaluate any argument, as long as it is properly warranted and does not make the round unsafe for anyone involved.
Policy
These are the rounds I am the most comfortable judging. I like 1NCs that spend a good bit of time on case and really engage with the aff (rehighlightings, smart analytics, things like that). I think impact turns are cool too. I think impact weighing is extremely important, and robust disad turns case explanations make me happy. I enjoy hearing smart advantage CPs. Nebel T is boring but if you read it I think going for limits offense is much smarter than semantics.
Kritiks/K Affs
I am probably the least comfortable judging these debates. I think policy vs. K debates can be cool, but they often feel overly confusing. I get really annoyed by super long 2NR overviews that don't make things any clearer. If I can understand what the K's thesis is, why the aff links, and why that's bad coming out of the debate - that's perfect. But I find that does not happen often. I have the most experience with cap, security, setcol, and queerpess, but anything beyond that might require more explanation than you're used to. For K affs, if I come out of the 2AR clearly understanding what your model of debate is and why that’s good, I will be very inclined to vote for you. Framework is probably the best strategy to go for in front of me, because K vs. K debates get very confusing quick.
Theory/Phil/Tricks
I'm all for it. I only ask for two things: make sure that your arguments are warranted and that you do weighing!! I notice 1AR theory debates become super hard to resolve when standards aren't responded to or weighed. Also it would be great if you go just a bit slower than usual because I am bad at flowing. I recently found out that I think phil debate is pretty cool. Feel free to read any philosopher you are comfortable with as long as you can explain it. I guess I'm fine with whatever tricky arguments you want to read BUT the sillier these args get the lower speaks you will get.
Traditional
I did a lot of traditional debate in high school am fine with judging it. I think that the value criterion is very important and should be very prevalent in every speech when it comes to weighing. Circuit competitors should be inclusive as possible to traditional debaters.
Public Forum
Adding this here because I occasionally judge this. Hopefully knowing that I have a policy background should be enough for you, but the two most important things to consider is that I evaluate rounds very technically and I won't listen to paraphrased evidence. Disclosure is also not really a norm yet in this event so I'm not very persuaded by related arguments.
Update for TOC Digital (12/2-12/4): I don't believe in sticky defense. Extend your arguments in every speech.
Speaker Points
I used to have a somewhat in-depth system here but I realize I really don't follow it. I think most rounds I judge I give speaks from 28.5 to 29. If I think you collapsed well and liked your strategy you'll get 29-29.5. If you are a super duper awesome debater you'll get above that, but it's somewhat rare for me.
Misc.
- Prep time ends when the doc is sent.
- I'll disclose speaks if you ask.
- I really really really don't like evaluating death good arguments.
- Misgendering is obviously very bad and if you do it repeatedly your speaks (and potentially my decision) will reflect that.
- It would be very cool if you slowed down on analytics, because I can't vote on something I didn't hear. This is compounded by my slightly below average flowing skills.
- If you couldn’t already tell, I lean tech over truth.
- If you are annoying in CX I will get annoyed.
- Accessibility is really important to me. Don’t bully novices and don’t be elitist toward traditional debaters.
- Accusations of clipping/violating ev ethics will stop the round. I think evidence is miscut if it is plagiarized, incorrectly cited (author/date), skips paragraphs, or starts or ends in the middle of a paragraph (where the skipped part of the text changes the meaning). I require a recording to verify clipping. If the accuser is correct, the other team loses with minimum speaks. If the accuser is wrong, they lose with minimum speaks.
I debated 4 years at River Hill High School in Clarksville, MD and then graduated from the University of Southern California (did not debate there).
I am just getting into judging so am not too familiar with the topic or developments in the past 5 years or so. However, I will follow the arguments made in the debate and evaluate them within the framework established by the debaters in the round. As a debater, I mostly ran traditional arguments but am familiar with some elements of critical arguments - they have relevance if debated well and if made relevant to the topic.
My email is houckmadeleine@gmail.com.
I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.
I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.
Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.
As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:
(1) I think the topic should be debated.
(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.
(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.
I agree: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=159647
David Le (Springfield, MO)
Mainly a Policy Debater, but I know my way around other debates.
More of a traditional debater/judge, but I don’t mind if you go circuit (flashing evidence/arguments is a must if your feeling like Busta Ryhmes).
On LD,
I do prefer if you have value and criterion. I know that some circuit LD doesn’t, but again I am more traditional.
On PF,
Let the chaos in crossfire be minimal. Also, don’t repeat all your arguments in the final focus. The FF is your last chance to grab my attention and state why you win.
Also, if someone is asking for it, just send your evidence. I will never understand PF evidence norms and paraphrasing grosses me out.
For general info,
K arguments are fine ig. Just make sure to know the links
Prefer if you didn’t run a K Aff, but I will vote on anything.
I will vote on T if used well, even if it’s a filler argument. And even you don’t feel like your winning on T, please don’t drop it. (Harper lol)
Extend your impact and framework, that is what I will mainly look for.
Case Turns are underrated and absolute fire!
If a team is actually abusive, then theory is ok.
And lastly, know your stuff. Even if your shouting a bunch of random, at least be confident (Shoutout Andre Swai).
Put me on the email chain (243239@sps.org)
Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.
Tech > Truth
Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com
Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.
Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory
I'll only intervene on two occasions
1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur
2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater
Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run
Speaks
I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.
Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though
Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk
Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks
Case
idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you
If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.
Rebuttal
First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.
Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".
Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens
Summary
You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo
First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff
Final Focus
New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff
CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention
Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.
Progressive
Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.
My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.
CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.
K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.
K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc
Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.
Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah
T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.
Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.
Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round
30 speaks if you sing the first two lines to the Ghanian National Anthem in your summary
Autodrop anyone who runs 20 speaks theory, 40 speaks theory, or 35 speaks theory
Autowin for 34 speaks theory
Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS
tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.
i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates
-phil ac vs phil nc
-k aff vs non cap kritik
-phil ac vs kritik
"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su
non-condo theory shells are dta unless otherwise justified
convinced by reasonability - affs need a c/i
i tend to read a lot of evidence - spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well
better for framework 2nrs that go for fairness
i try not to be expressive in round if i make any facial expressions it is probably unrelated to the round
He/Him
email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu
lots of circuit experience (gtoc and more)
ask me anything before round!
tldr: run whatever, explain it, win!
disclosure is good (I mean for my decision, ofc)
-
Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. I was forced by my partner to love impact turns (do what you will with that). More on progressive stuff below.
-
Pleeeease read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (saves u from theory)
-
for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in speech. for example, if I'm running solving domestic violence in my case, which some people could be uncomfortable debating about since that's an issue personal to them, I would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)
- Tell me if you're in the bubble and I'll give you 30s
- If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I'm fine with a nice, chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority!
Speeches
- Paraphrasing is chill, just don't lie about evidence. HOWEVER, I’m open to cut-card theory–I won’t intervene with my personal ideologies.
-
I'm fine with any speed, I don’t want to limit you as the judge. However, notify me before your speech so I know what to expect! I'll let you know if I need a doc or not.
-
Enunciate even if you're spreading, don't try to slur words to get more stuff out pls.
Rebuttal
-
You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
-
Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.
Summary/FF
-
Must extend your link, impact, and clear warrant!!! (idc about author names I don't flow them)
Framework
-
Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times, teams will just read a blip at the top of case saying “The fw for this debate should be how x will help in the future”
-
I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)
Progressive
-
ngl idk much about prog
- I was not a theory debater
judge simp bad!
bryce.q.ownby@gmail.com
Debate is a game. Tech > truth. I dislike intervention and will avoid it whenever possible. Speed is fine, but I’m not the best at flowing so send docs and slow down on analytics.
I default Truth Testing, Epistemic Confidence, Presumption Affirms, Permissibility Negates, Competing Interps, No RVI, DTA. Don’t make me default, all of these change with a sentence.
Read the argument that gives you the best chance of winning the debate. I don’t care what you read, I will vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact, but obviously not arguments that don't warrant their conclusion ("the sky is blue so vote aff"). Do what you're good at.
Phil: I'm most familiar with Kant, Hobbes, Virtue Ethics, Polls, and Levinas. Don’t avoid reading a framework because it’s not listed, or assume that I will do explanation for you because I happen to be familiar with it. Speaks bump for well-executed AC/NC debates.
Theory: Probably went for this the most. No such thing as friv theory, obviously varying strengths of abuse stories. Read paradigm issues!
Tricks: Make these debates clean and not a nightmare to evaluate. Might not catch something if you “extemp” it mid-constructive.
Ks: Err towards overexplanation. K Tricks/ Floating PiKs should be hinted at in the 1NC. Do lbl, I don’t want to listen to a 6-minute overview that has no interaction with the aff.
K affs v T: Pretty much only been on the T side of this debate, but agnostic on whether the aff should defend the resolution.
Policy: Read whatever, just know I’m not good for in-depth policy rounds as it’s the style I've done the least. Impact turns are cool - fine with spark, warming good, wipeout, death/extinction good, etc.
Hellooo! I am an ex a public forum debate and am currently in med school! I have quite a bit of debate experience (debated for 4 years) and now I coach PF.
I would really appreciate that you guys use technical debate terms/jargon throughout the round. I'll try to include as many details as possible but if you have any other questions feel free to ask. Remember the most important thing is that you try your best and have fun!!
- I can keep up with a pretty fast pace just make sure its understandable, but slow down when reading your impacts or numbers so I can get them all down.
- In your rebuttal I really would prefer a line by line approach but if you don't it wont hurt you.
- For summary please make sure to use impact calculus and explain to me why they apply to each individual issue. Make sure you really summarize for me what happened in the round but please don't just make it another rebuttal that'll make your speaks lower...
- On that same note do not mention any arguments in final focus that you didn't extend through summary. If I hear something not mentioned in summary in final focus, i'll just stop flowing.
- In final focus, same thing as summary don't just refute everything again. This your chance to really grab my attention and tell me why your'e winning. Make it priority to get all the voting issues across. Flat out tell me what they are and how you won them.
- On evidence, I really don't care if you ask for it but if you ask for a new piece every 5 secs i'll probably get annoyed and lower your speaks. With that being said, if you debate over a card for a while i'll ask for it at the end and use that for my decision.
- I will ALWAYS keep time, but do as well try your best to NOT leave more than or go over 3 seconds. In cx, if you go over time just finish your sentence (briefly) don't waste time by asking me.
- I love a fiery cx but if you're rude you'll lose speakers, and if you're just plain disrespectful ( racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc.) you're losing the round.
- If you make me laugh, bring me coffee, or reference Grey's Anatomy your speaker points will be boosted:)
Goodluck!
Mira Loma '25
I competed heavily on the national and local circuit since my sophomore year and accumulated 8 bids to the PF TOC.
Add me to the email chain: pranavprad7@gmail.com
Label the chain properly ex. "UKSO Quarters - Saratoga GJ (Aff) vs. Mira Loma PM (Neg)"
Tech>Truth. Truth doesn’t exist.
Read anything you want, debate is a game and games are fun when the players make the rules.
I prefer certain norms, however, nothing is EVER absolute in debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - read a warrant why.
General:
I won’t flow directly off docs, however, send docs with cards (send them in the email text or as Word docs - NO google docs).
I can handle 250-300 wpm but err on the side of caution - send docs.
Slow down on tags and analytics, especially if they are not on the doc.
Bad evidence ethics constitutes a L25 - my threshold to stake the round on an evidence challenge is pretty high unless the ethics behind evidence is obviously terrible. However, read an IVI on the evidence and I'll be very inclined to vote on it.
Absent a warrant I presume to whoever lost the coin flip (if there is no flip - I presume 1st speaking team).
TKO's are a W30, if there is a path to the ballot it is an L25.
Open cross is fine.
Substance:
Defense is not sticky.
Turns are not defensive - you must do the comparative to make a turn a voter.
My threshold for extensions is lenient - you can extend warrants (I prefer this tbh).
I prefer link weighing to impact weighing.
Make sure to resolve the clash on link-ins and prereqs.
Theory:
I'll evaluate any shell with a warrant.
Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, full text is good, neutral on OS, IMO full text good > disclosure bad.
I believe certain norms but I won’t be biased when judging theory.
I’ll vote on friv theory, meta-theory, impact turns, interp flaws, etc.
I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVI’s, DTD - can be changed with the right warrant
K:
Explain the literature if the K is not topical.
No paraphrased Ks.
A conceded ROTB is not a TKO; you must win the clash on your position.
Things I Like:
Metaweighing and carded weighing is great.
Creative and nuanced arguments, I spent a lot of time finding the most squirrelly arguments on topics I have debated.
Impact turns.
Fun rounds with moving components and lots of clash.
Speaks:
I award speaks based on strategy and fluency.
Try to keep the round interesting and do what you do well and you will get high speaks.
I will never go below a 27, unless you did something offensive.
If you still are unsure about my paradigm I view the round similar to: Holden Carrillo, Joseph Nahas, Sully Mrkva, and Ashish Goswami.
Hey! I'm Nathanael. My paradigm is reaallyyy bad it's a conglomeration of things I realize I don't like and added to a general section but I'll update later when I have time. Feel free to email for clarification
5-second summary for prefs:
- PF/LD: former policy debater, run prog arguments, ok w Ks and (meta) theory, send speech docs, please have highlighted evidence and not summarizing or whatever
- Policy: I'm cool with p much anything just if you're running fw or Ks beyond the basic cap / set col / fem ir / etc. pls eli5 b/c I'm probably unfamiliar with the lit
Biographical information about me is at the very bottom, if that is of interest / help to you.
SPEECH: If you got here, your probably either saw some fancy icon next to my name that most judges don't have, or you're a debater.
For speech: Just know that I'm at heart a debater, a technical one at that, so to me content is extremely important, and delivery is less important.
For interp: Welp, tbh I'm probably not the best judge for you. But if we're in a round together, I'll find the overall message of your piece very important, and obviously content of the piece is a large part of that, but so is delivery (shocker, right?).
For limited prep: This is where it gets fun. I again emphasize content over delivery. You must have a logical argument flow that is (relatively) simple to understand. Theatrics of making your speech look pretty won't get you very far in front of me if you aren't doing any proper analysis. That doesn't mean this is a debate round: have an attention-getter, conclusion, etc. and don't spread.
CONGRESS:
For speakers: If I'm judging in your chamber, I want questioning to be like super important but also there's no shot imma remember what questions you asked *too* well unless you really impress me, so do that. So then speeches are of course really important; obviously the further back in the cycle the speeches are the more rebuttals there should be. Do not be afraid to call people out or be a bit more brash in front of me. As a debater, I have a very high threshold for a 6 speech. Most good speeches will be 5s or 4s.
For POs: As somebody that really enjoyed POing and saw quite a bit of success with it, this is not your ticket to the top whatever of my ballot. I have an extremely high threshold for POs -- an average PO deserves an average ranking. So that means if you're POing, in addition to not messing up much (or at all), you should have something special about how you preside that impresses me.
DEBATE:
General:
Logistics
- Call me whatever you want, as long as it's (a) clear it's referring to me and (b) nothing crazy formal -- "judge" is the most formal I'd like it (go as informal as you want)
- If you're preffing pref me low or strike me pretty please (you can see I kinda structured my paradigm to increase the probability of that) I'm a college student I have hw I don't really want to judge that much (that being said, if I do judge a round, I will give it my 100%)
- I really like speechdrop or Tabroom file share!! Prefer it over email chain
- Prep time ends either (a) when I see users' hands up in the air and call out end prep; or (b) I receive the speech doc in my email or file share. If you're having trouble with WiFi, then immediately once you upload/send call prep, and we'll give it a sec to see if it's just the connection being slow or smthn, and if that doesn't fix it, we'll go from there -- but at a minimum, we know that you're done with prep --> I'm realizing now that I like never enforce this but I will enforce it if it becomes a problem in-round or either team asks me to
Judging Paradigm (tabula rasa)
- I currently debate BP in college. I try not to let it affect my judging, but full disclosure the default paradigm for judges in BP is the “average intelligent voter.” This also means that, since BP doesn’t include evidence, I’m more interested than most in your warrants / logic. Good authors are not a substitute for the warrants / logic. Good authors can enhance your warrants and logic, though! Overviews are really good at showing your warranting. And if there’s something wrong / logically inconsistent in your opponent/s O/V yes ofc you have to point that out, I’m not gonna intervene for you if I don’t need to
- In terms of judging paradigms, I try to be tabula rasa but for full transparency I'm not the biggest fan of our current economic system
Speech content / argumentation notes
- I probably have 0 topic knowledge
- Don’t be afraid to roast your opponent’s evidence / logic / weighing / whatever! Just don’t be toxic, which I probably have a higher standard than most for since I was / am a more aggressive debater.
- I shouldn’t have to say this but you don’t need authors for like logic, linking two pieces of evidence together, or 1+1=2, or saying by proving the contrapositive then the original statement is true, or proving that, when n is a positive integer, the set of solutions to the nth order ordinary differential equation is an n-dimensional subspace of the vector space of infinitely differentiable functions defined in the Reals, etc.
- In an effort to combat the advantage that big schools with much resources have, I’m willing to accept non-carded evidence for things like current events. Like you can easily tell me uncarded that Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, or Israeli assaults in the 21 days following Hamas’ 7 October 2023 incursion have killed 10,000 Palestinians. I’m in general pretty knowledgeable about current events, and barring history majors, know quite a bit about (global) history, too, so feel free to bring some history up as well. You probably can’t say that the Israeli intelligence apparatus failed to detect the Hamas incursion because x or Russia invaded Ukraine because y without cards unless you have super sound logic.
- I'll vote on disclosure (and any theory) but, again, I come from a small school, so, if debated properly, small school is a totally valid response to that (or any theory argument for that mater)
- Default position on theory unless told otherwise (please do) is debate is a game, education most important
- In general if you ELI5 something complex well, not only am I more likely to vote for you in the round (duh) but I become happy and me happy means high speaks
- I will not vote on anything I don't understand
- PLEASE DON'T DROP THINGS! If you wanna have an argument on your side throughout the round you must extend it in every speech! Every voter, every impact, every link, etc.
- If there is no response (or preempt if it's your final speech) from you, I will default to what your opponent says. If I didn't then I would be intervening on your behalf and staying true to tabula rasa I can't do that. For example, they introduce a new DA in their first rebuttal and they say it's allowed. I will assume it is allowed unless you tell me it's not and why it's not. The why is key on both sides here!!
- Weigh!! I will choose the easiest path to victory. Even if your evidence may be killer and take out all their impacts, if you don't say it does, it doesn't.
(summarizing my thoughts on progressive args) Let's make debate a better place :)
General thoughts on prog args below (LD/CX):
Theory I miss theory sooooo much in BP it's so sad I realize now how much I love debating theory and the impacts of debate as an activity so probably run it I'll be happy to hear it. Default on condo is to err aff when voting, but not immediately dropping neg. Default on disclosure is to vote on it. Idk why meta-theory (theory abt theory) is called meta-theory but feel free to run it as a pre-empt... or only after a violation has occurred, whatever
Kritik I also miss Ks and debates on perms, alts, root cause, etc. ig I am more progressive than I thought but aaaah we must question our underlying assumptions, logic, etc. and ofc your opponents' performance in round! As per the above I'm familiar with the basic / traditional Ks, e.g., Cap, Set Col, Sec, etc. but more complex I'm willing to vote on (esp since I only hear 'em when I'm judging and they're not in BP) as long as it's explained well. Default to perms are a test of competition (or you can tell me otherwise), run as many perms as you want but obv they must be explained well or I'm not gonna vote on it. Also imo alt debates don't happen enough (Chandler 07!!)
Framework / ROB You'd better run this if you're running a K, also in general it's helpful! This is imo the easiest part of a debate to get messy tho, and I hate a messy fw debate, so I might just call the fw debate a wash if it gets too messy and default to average intelligent voter.
Case pls don't drop
Stylistic stuff
- Speed ok. Will clear you twice per speech
- Seeennndddd speeeeccchhhhh dddooooooccccssssss ppppllllllleeeeeaaaaassssssseeeeeeeeeeeeee to EVERYONE (not just judges) it helps with education, fairness, and lets everyone gets more out of the round! If you don't you'll probably hear a spiel from me during RFDs -- before I disclose -- on why you should send speech docs :)
- If you also send analytics in your speech docs to everyone (not just judges) I’ll be more likely to catch 'em and I’ll I’ll be happy, and you can go faster on your analytics too
- Feel free to postround me, just don't have an ego complex of your x years of debate experience at NSDA finals or whatever please. I'm always down with a civil discussion; my experiences are different from yours, and that influences how I judge whether you or I like it or not. I get that emotions run high especially at TOC bid tournaments or nats whatever but if you're not being civil I won't engage in discussion with you. And just to emphasize I can't change my decision or speaks afterwards!! So postrounding is solely a learning experience for the both of us (I hope), and something that I value greatly
Notes on specific styles of debate
PF: Ik that my thing on dropping things is args weird for PF, I guess that’s the CXer in me. I’m trying to get better at not penalizing things when most other flow PF judges wouldn’t for dropping things, but it’s still very much a WIP so probably play it safe. Lmk if I’m being unfair tho please, I’d really appreciate it! I don't really care that much about how you speak, just speak well and weigh well. Also I love PF Ks, whether they're (a) not really a K it's really a leftist DA instead but you guys call them Ks because y'all want to for some reason, or (b) if it's a like legit K. I'll totally vote on them (along with T, theory, etc.) I haven't voted on like tricks or anything but I'm not inherently opposed to them.
LD: I like progressive LD (I'm a CXer ofc I do). The closer the round is to a CX round, the better judge I'll be. Yes this includes Ks and theory. So on that note, a value criterion is probably less important to me than most other judges. Also I'm not too familiar with a lot of philosophy so if your philosophy isn't super common ELI5 please. Especially important in LD -- if there isn't any impact calc / weighing, or if there's minimal impact calc / weighing, i.e., not enough work is done or not enough was said on impact calc / weighing under your -- or opponents' -- FW, even though some work was done / something was said, I will most likely default to or at least weigh the impacts under or at least consider the result of the "average intelligent voter" (the trad BP judging paradigm).
CX: Run whatever you want have fun, K affs ok, ELI5 any Ks not super common (e.g., set col, cap, etc.), this probably should be longer but I'm lazy and I'm tired and my head hurts and this'll do for now. Feel free to ask me or email me any questions and I'll probably respond and add it here, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, here's my bio / experience, if it is of any help:
Name: Nathanael Ren
Contact: 0.char_pen@icloud.com (everything here please -- email chains, questions, etc.)
Education:
- Brookfield East '23 (WI) --> CONFLICTED (obv)
- Duke '27, CS, Electrical & Computer Engineering, Math idk maybe very not sure yet plans probably will change
Cool stuff I like outside of speech / debate (feel free to talk to me about these): High school robotics (FRC), college robotics (RoboSub), running, tennis, politics / IR (probably could've guessed this), tech in general, CS, computer architecture, ML / AI, Apple
Current Speech / Debate Experience: Duke Debate (BP)
HS Speech / Debate experience: (my primary events were policy debate (2019-2023), extemp (2019-2022), and congress (2023) )
- Debate: VCX WI State Champion (2022, 2023)
- Speech: Extemp (mixed) WI State 3rd place (2022)
- Congress: WI State Runner-Up (2023)
- Biggest tournament I broke at: NCFL Grand Nats, in Policy
- Appearances at TOCs: 2x
I am a relatively new judge to debate. Please be proactive and let me know what you need. Thank you in advance.
Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!
If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.
I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com and potomacdocs@gmail.com. Add both to the chain!
Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.
Philosophy:
I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)不(Do not do these)
Do not
1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!
2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything. And I'll hack.
I do not like
1. Paraphrasing
2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.
3. No speech Docs.
4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.
5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.
This part is stolen from THE beach
***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***
As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene (i probably will unless if it's super bad) but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.
I like these
- Theory (but not stupid and friv)
- Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
- Framing / Meta Weighing
- I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
- Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)
Why do I care so much about good ev?
I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.
Strike me if you
1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)
2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L
3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.
Arguments:
1-5. 1 I like. 5 I hate
LARP: 1
Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS
Framework: 1
- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).
T/Theory: 2
- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.
- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.
Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.
K : 1.5
- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.
- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.
- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list
This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.
Plans/CP : 1
- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.
- I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
- I think infinite condo on CPs are bad
DA: 1
- All good,weigh them!
Trix: 4
If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"
I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.
I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIII
Speed: 2
- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.
- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.
Performance/Non T AFFs : 2
You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.
- If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
- Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26
Presumption:
- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.
TKOS: 4
- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following
1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped
2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it
3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.
4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?
5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.
6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)
I'm a high school PF debater
You can read whatever you want.
Required in each of your speeches(any one of the below):
1. Jojos reference
2. Cobra Kai reference
3. 30 speaks theory
4. nuke war impact
5. dedev ( u have to win some extent of it and i'll evaluate )
6. spreading in the final focus
7. sing the Indian national anthem at the end of each of your speeches
8. PLEASE say Game over judge at least 35 times in each speech
9. Read thankyous to whoever you want to thank for being in the tournament (3 thankyous required)
if both teams don't do this, I evaluate a round normally. I'm a flow judge but don't go too fast. pls do weighing. I like framing and theory debate. Overall, just win ur links, impacts, and weigh.
Add me to the email chain: evanhpdebate@gmail.com
Senior at Highland Park.
Debated policy for three years, did LD on the UIL circuit.
Policy:
I've seen a lot of things, but I myself have run tons of stuff. Went for the cap K a lot, and have seen most generic Kritiks so if its not a more mainstream one pretend as if I have no knowledge on the topic because I probably don't.
I'm not too familiar with this water topic, but I know the basics so if you're gonna be super jargony explain the first time around and I'll get it.
Online Debating:
I prefer if you have your camera on just to make speeches easier to follow, but if you have camera problems it's all good.
Strake Jesuit '25
Email chain: justindebate314@gmail.com
I like debates that feature long pieces of evidence.
Scenarios start at 0%. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Sweeping explanations of the world rarely exist.
Arguments that contravene basic intuition require an extreme level of warranting that is hard given a short timeframe.
I try to be a good judge, but if you run random Ks on me, i might miss the core of the debate.
i would strongly prefer if you called me "Your honor" (on in panel, say panel)
tell me your fav rap song, and I'll give bonus speaks based on that (to make sure that you read this)
Real paradigm below \/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Novice LD paradigm
It's a learning experience guys, I was in your shoes, I sucked too so
Y'all can ask me questions if your stuck at any time and I'll help you out
I emphasize fw a lot, but will vote off of impacts.
Do impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude)
If you run plan affs, I'll be mad and dock speaks, but go ahead lol
Prefer disclosure with me, do whatever you'd enjoy
If you'll be running anything prog (or what upperclassmen wrote for you, read the whole paradigm please)
LD Paradigm
First, I'm a more progressive judge, so I'm fine with almost anything.
I don't have a preference on disclosure, but if y'all don't disclose, don't spread or run high phil.
Spread all u want, but send me the docs. If you spread badly I'll dock speaks. Nobody likes incomprehensible spreading, T-T
Drown your speech in theory shells for all I care. Please make sure I understand them though cuz theory i don't understand makes me cry T-T
TIP: Sound like your opponent committed a war crime, and I'm more likely to buy it than just reading the shell in a monotone voice.
I do prefer empirical evidence over philosophy unless it's something like Baudrillard where you target the mindset.
It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.
You can be as abusive as you want in arguments and observations. Fair warning, you might hit a few theory shells. I don't like plan affs, and will lower speaks, but you can run it.
No new args in the 2nr/2ar, please (common sense)
I will time, and when the timer goes off I’ll stop flowing so you talking longer than 10 seconds over serves no strategic purpose.
I am tech > truth and am a (mostly) tabula rasa judge
1. Theory
1.5 Trix (Read curry's paradox i love it ngl)
2. Larp and non-identity k
3. standard case
3.5 pomo phil
4. common Phil (kant, rawls, locke)
5. Identity arguments
Arguments I will not vote for (this list might get longer as time goes on)
-ableist/racist/sexist/transphobic/classist/violent arguments. To clarify, if I am judging a round where it comes down to a racist argument and a sexist argument, I will vote on presumption, not one of the two arguments.
If your opponent points out that your case defends or supports one of the above, you need to win that issue, or else I will not vote for that.
Please signpost along the way to make it easier.
Speaks
I think the method of giving speaks based on how far I'll think you'll go in the tourney is pretty dumb - however, higher speaks probably mean you're more likely to get to Elim rounds. Anyway, this is how I view speaks:
27: It was really bad/I couldn't understand you
28: It was ok/could be a lot better
29: It was decent/not bad/a little improvement but not terrible
30: Pretty good/good clash/impact calc
I don't really care enough to give like .1 speaks it will either be a whole number or end in 0.5 - i.e. like 29 or 29.5, but not 29.2 or 28.8. (If the debate was good, but I was triggered, I will give .9 purely to spite)
Ways to get free speaks (not free ballots)
1. Make a video game reference or do something funny and I'll bump your speaks. Or make jokes, idrc. Meme cases might probably not get a ballot from me (it sometimes has though), but depending on the case, probably a 29.5 or 30. If you run a spiritualism meme case, I will give you an automatic 30.
If you want me to clarify something about this paradigm please ask.
Credit to Zachary Li and Graham Johnstone for parts of the paradigm
Good luck, and have fun! (and win)
PF Paradigm
I think Hanming Sun summarizes all of my best points here when he says "i am a lay judge. speak slow."
Just a few things, extend in 3rd, really write my ballot on the 4th for me, and if ur a 2, bonus points if you hit every single part of their case.
Policy Paradigm
Signpost, if you don't know what it is, good luck my dude
Do some weighing, tell me why you win
If you don't know who Phoenix Pittman is and if he didn't get cancelled yet, ballot paint for me (write my ballot)
Honestly, policy sucks so just make the round fun and everyone will get good speaks ig, idrc
Try not to curse out your opponents ig, it's policy and i'd curse too
If you run a callout aff, ill give you max speaks
Spread lol i love spreading
NO MERCY