What's up , I'm Adarsh

Start an email chain at the start of rounds ----------- adarsh.ambekar@gmail.com ------------- I'm not gonna add or dock speaker points if you choose not to disclose, I think that every team has the strategic right to withhold their case. Obviously if cards are called for you have to disclose them, otherwise I'm gonna think you're fabricating or clipping evidence. Also if you do disclose it makes it easier for me to follow along and actually understand the evidence you're reading, which makes it easier for me to make an educated decision.

For the most part Tech > Truth, but when things start to get spun out hand I'll always default to an argument which has empirics over anything else.

1. Arguments and evidence need to be extended throughout a round, obviously excluding situations in which you're collapsing.

2. Defense isn't sticky, so if you drop anything read in rebuttal and then try and pick it up in final focus, I'm not gonna evaluate it, even if it's true.

3. Unless you're entirely dropping an arg, frontline all the evidence to the best of your ability. If there's no response to turns in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary, I consider it finished and fully turned, so don't bother trying to address it final focus, I won't consider anything that wasn't read earlier in the round.

4. I don't mind collapsing and actually encourage it to some extent for teams who are speaking 2nd. Make sure you clearly say at some point in your speech that you're collapsing so that it doesn't come off as you just dropping or even forgetting about an arg.

5. New summary evidence can always be a little finicky, so the only thing I'll evaluate is new defensive evidence in 1st summary ; 2nd summary is too late to bring something in. If you bring in new offense in 1st or anything new in 2nd, I'm automatically inclined to cut your speaker points because it's a violation of debate standards.

6. I'd like to see some weighing from 2nd rebuttal onwards, but I understand that time can sometimes be a constraint so it won't hurt you if you start weighing in summary. If you don't weigh, I won't count it against you, but the team which weighs always gives the judge a clearer path to voting for them.

7. Rather than only telling me the card name or tagline, I prefer that you briefly explain the implication of the evidence as well. Otherwise I end up having to do that for you, which leaves it open to my interpretation.

I'll evaluate paraphrase theory with no qualms because I think it's one of the few theories that actually has a meaningful impact on debate. I'm not so hot on disclosure theory, but I'll still evaluate it. If you read the stuff at the top of my paradigm you'll know that I personally don't believe in it, but if you think you can really convince me then go for it. I probably won't evaluate any other forms of theory just because I haven't encountered them or studied them, so if you choose to run something random, you're probably wasting your time.

Speed is fine, so long as it's still relatively flowing. I know that everyone will stutter or slip up at some point, so don't worry too much about that so long as it doesn't impede my ability to understand you.

In terms of how to conduct yourself in a debate, I have rules that are fairly similar to other judges. Any rhetoric or arguments of a racist, sexist, or homophobic nature will result in an immediate loss, with no exceptions.

I understand that debate is an inherently clashing event, but I still always prefer that debaters retain their composure and keep things clean.

Feel free to ask questions before and after round.

Hiii I'm Jyotsna.

I've debated at Westwood for a year, so this is my second year ig.

Tech > truth

**NSDA Campus is a little difficult to work with so I would really appreciate y'all starting email chains in case we have any issues - jyotsna.arunkumar109@gmail.com**

Here are some things I would like to see:

1) Frontline turns in second rebuttal. I'm a second speaker, so I know 2nd rebuttal can be hard, but ideally you should frontline everything that you're going for in the back half of the round. If that's a lot, then just turns is fine.

2) I don't think defense is sticky, sorry.

3) Collapse

4) 2nd summary shouldn't have new evidence or new "arguments" really.

5) Weigh :)

6) Extend. If they're blippy, I'll have a very difficult time voting on that argument.

7) More weighing. I don't want to have to do the work for you when it comes to deciding whose impacts matter more. If neither of you weigh, I'll be forced to do that part for y'all and it might not turn out in your favor.

Progressive stuff:

I'm not comfortable with it, so you would have to explain really, really, really, really well. I will vote on it if it's done properly and I can understand it. I'm okay with disclosure + paraphrase theory.

I will dock speaks for being rude, might drop you too. You can do well while being nice.

Read arnav's paradigm if you're confused abt anything I have

Westwood '22

Competed on both the local and national circuit; Didn't compete as much during my Jr and Sr yr due to COVID.

Yes, add me on the email chain: rohanbajpai024@gmail.com

If you have any questions about your round, feel free to hit me up on messenger or I can tell you after RFD (if I have time).

TL;DR

Tech>Truth (I like true args tho). Read Amogh Mahambre's bit on this if you want to understand the specifics of my philosophy on this. Basically sums up how I am w/Tech>Truth. Make my time judging you easy.

SEND OUT SPEECH DOCS IF YOU ARE READING EV (Constructive and rebuttal especially). I'm fine with no speech docs for summary or final focus – I don't expect to receive one. If you have a speech doc for those speeches, don't send them. I only want constructive and rebuttal speech docs.

If you're paraphrasing, there should be cut cards. Ev ethics is a huge problem, and I take it in high regard. If you bracket, I have a problem with that.

I evaluate theory, but not the best at it.

No k affs, ks, or non-t affs. I am not comfortable voting off of them, even if I know the args.

Fine with spreading, but send speech doc. It'll be tough for me to flow w/o a speech doc.

Defense isn't sticky (has to be extended no matter what)

I'm fine with whatever you read (obv not discriminatory, racist, or sexist), but I prefer well-warranted args over anything else.

High threshold for warrants and extensions

Link weighing>>>>impact weighing

Assume that I don't know anything about the topic – I'll only do some topic research if a) I actually like the topic or b) I kinda know what's going on

People whose paradigms I mostly agree with – Amogh Mahambre, Srikar Satish, and Akhil Bhale. To simply sum it up, I would like to consider myself to be less technical than them but technical enough to be considered a tech judge.

Call me Akhil. Westwood '22

Important

1) If you plan on going fast, start at like 70% speed and ramp up from there. Slow down on tags and pls pls pls number your responses.

2) Don't assume I'm caught up on the meta of topics, explain acronyms and do the necessary work.

3) I care about rounds starting on time. Please come to rounds already preflowed and ready to begin. Flight 2s should ideally already have email chains set up with the Aff/Neg ready to be sent out.

4) I want to be on the email chain- akhilbhale@gmail.com

Send a compiled doc of cut cards that you will be reading BEFORE your speech. This means you should create an email chain and send your docs as attachments in the email, preferably not in the body. Sending a link to a Google Doc is a no-go; download the Google Doc as a Word document and attach it to the email instead.

Miscellaneous

I'm somewhat stubborn with speaks and will probably average around 28.5-29 . Receiving anything above necessitates a combination of good strategy, reading from cut cards (whenever evidence is first introduced), and disclosing broken positions.

Considering this is an evidence-based activity, good evidence, and its surrounding ethics matter to me. Cut and read good evidence.

Flex prep and tag-team crossfires are fine. Skip grand cross if everyone agrees too. Please don't steal prep, I will notice. Your pens should be down and your fingers off your computer if you're not prepping.

Every claim needs to be warranted the first time it's introduced for you to go for it later. I keep a pretty clean flow and will notice if there are incomplete or missing warrants.

The second rebuttal should frontline everything on the argument they go for and start the collapse debate. I care about good frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. There's a fine line between lazy frontlining and efficient frontlining. Defense IS NOT sticky but my threshold for first summary defense extensions is a lot lower if the 2nd rebuttal goes for everything on case.

Weighing [ :( ]. In the wise words of Evan Burkeen- "I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me." If you're going for a "link-in", I need a reason why your "link-in" outweighs their impact standalone.

I have a decent threshold for extensions. This encompasses everything- any offense, defense, or argument you want to be evaluated must have a coherent extension of it. This doesn't mean that it has to be super long or sophisticated, just present.

Link turns need to have uniqueness attached to it. For example, if the aff says HSR makes Democrats win the midterms, to link turn this the neg has to win that HSR makes Democrats lose AND that Democrats are winning the midterms now.

Read impact turns, they're fun. I don't need an extension of the link scenario.

Kicking turns by conceding no-links requires an explanation of why the no-link kicks out of the turn. Absent an explanation, the team reading the turn can go for it in the next speech.

I'm fine with some levels of sarcasm/pettiness/trolling- it's funny but don't be mean to novices.

I vote neg absent offense.

Theory

Most open to hearing disclosure and paraphrase theory but curious to see what other violations you can extrapolate. Personally think disclosure (open source) is good and paraphrasing is bad but obviously won't hack for these arguments.

Not voting on TW/CW/Opt-out theory.

Uninterested in hearing arguments about new or novice debaters not having to disclose/cut cards, don't compete in Varsity if that's the case. I default to competing interpretations, exact text of the interp and (no?) RVIs. The no RVIs debate has always been confusing to me and it really depends on the CI being read. I.e if the interp is "must read from cut cards" and the CI is "must read paraphrased cards", the CI team should obviously get to win if they win their interp. For other CIs that are not competitive, probably default to no RVIs.

Shells must be read after the first instance of the violation. There are no limits on this- you can read paraphrase theory in 1st summary if 2nd rebuttal is the first instance of paraphrased cards.

I will be very happy if you read Topicality with a good definition card and can articulate a context-specific violation.

Not a stickler for theory extensions, just allocate the time elsewhere and do the necessary work on the standard/weighing,

Kritiks

Probably not the best for Kritiks but have decent exposure to them. Pretty familiar with generics like Cap and Security but will do my best to understand/judge other literature. Please clearly delineate links to the Aff and explain the alt/rotb/rotj.

I'd rather you not spread through your prewritten extensions and instead engage with the line by line.

K affs- I probably err neg on T/Fw but I think an Aff strategy of impact turns against impacts like fairness, and a durable CI makes voting Aff substantially easier.

This is still kinda incomplete and I'll add more things as I remember but if you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email (it should be hyperlinked above).

Debated PF at Westwood High School, 2018-2022

Send Email Chain before round starts and add me: nathan.fang4@gmail.com.

I agree with Amogh Mahambare's Paradigm.

K's and Theories are fine, but make sure to articulate it well and clearly.

Speed is fine, just don't spread. Treat me as a flay judge for better results.

General stuff

i competed for 4 years in pf

i did some stuff

i'm down for whatever in round

postround me if you think i'm wrong

i will almost always prefer good warranted analytics over bad unwarranted evidence

put me on the chain jeffpfree@gmail.com

if its not on my paradigm I don't encounter it often or haven't formulated an opinion on it yet; just ask before round

LD:

Pref Shortcut

1 - T/Theory, Policy

2 - Tricks

3 - Phil, K

4 - High Theory K, everything else

note for k debate

since i did bad event in hs I am not very read on majority of k lit, especially more obscure stuff

that being said read whatever you want -- it just might take me a little bit to fully understand it

Defaults

T/Theory>K

Edu>Fairness

No RVIs, competing interps, DTD

PF:

event is kind of not good and rounds are usually boring - i am definitely biased towards whoever has more entertaining round strat

disclosure is probably good and paraphrasing is probably bad

i am not very sympathetic towards trigger warning shells that preclude discourse and kill arguments - i'll evaluate but my threshold to DTD is much higher than with any other theory argument

evidence standards are very low atm, i lean heavily towards any bracketing/misrep/etc. shell

Hello!

The short version on how to win my ballot:

-Be clear. If you can't spread then please don't try.

-Warrant. Repeating author names does not make your argument more important in the round, warranting why it is more important/valid does.

-Weigh. Please. Just. Weigh.

If you have any questions, my email is freundmikas@gmail.com

How I evaluate rounds in more detail:

Constructive: I really do not care what you read. I am less familiar with progressive args and therefore less likely to vote for them. If you paraphrase, please do so with integrity. If I think a piece of evidence is power tagged or flat out misconstrued I will call for it. Send me a speech doc if you want before or after your speech.

Rebuttal: The second rebuttal has to respond to the first rebuttal. Please warrant your response, if you simply dump I will not grant you any contextualization you decide to suddenly add in second summary or final focus. Be strategic, frameworks and weighing overviews are usually a good idea especially in second rebuttal. No Offs in second rebuttal. Overall just be clear and strategic.

Summary: Defense is not sticky in first summary. Weighing should at the very least be present here to be an active part of my decision, however, it really should be briefly mentioned in rebuttal. Please collapse, it will make the round cleaner and more interesting for everyone involved. No new arguments in second summary unless you are FL something new from first summary.

Final focus: Anything that was not in the summary should not be in the FF. This is the time to really emphasize your weighing and win my ballot based on that. Extending a ton of responses and going for coverage while sacrificing contextualization will be a mistake.

Cross: I don't care what you do. However, please don't take advantage of the situation if your opponent clearly has very little experience or is a novice. We should encourage younger debaters to stay in the activity! Either way cross won't affect my decision.

*Obviously I will not tolerate any arguments or comments that are condescending, hurtful or straight-up racist/sexist/discriminatory in any way. Comments as such will award you with the lowest speaks I can give as a judge.*

Also, please don't postround me. As a debater myself I know the frustration that comes with disagreeing with the judge's decision. However, I am doing my best to make the "right" decision and hope that you can accept it, even if not wholeheartedly. Overall if you have a question that will help you learn from the round don't hesitate to email me I will be happy to help!

If you're not having fun, don't debate. You shouldn't be so attached to my ballot that it's the basis for you competing. You're free to postround me as long as you use it to learn and improve.

The flow sets up an algorithm for deciding the winner, but in many cases it doesn't resolve everything. Unless both teams debate perfectly, there's usually something that's still messy after final focus. In those scenarios, intervention on my part is necessary to reach a decision and you will have to accept the judgements I make. This paradigm should help you infer the guidelines along which I will intervene so that you can adapt to them strategically.

I have the right to drop you, your speaks, and/or your arguments if they are racist, sexist, or anything else -ist.

Ask me if you have any questions about topics not discussed below, or if you want me to explain my reasoning for anything on my paradigm. If you somehow find the time to argue against something in my paradigm during your speeches, I will evaluate it as a framing argument and if you end up winning it then I will evaluate the round along the lines you have proposed.

If we have extra time before or after the round and you want advice or takeaways from someone whos been through a full high school debate career (or even answers to topic-related questions) then I'm always there to talk :)

Personal info:

- Four years of experience, all in PF

- First speaker for all four years

- Moderate exposure to theory args, some exposure to kritiks

- Can handle speed but send speech docs if possible

Issues of how I decide the round:

- High threshold for warranting when arguments are first read, you can be more brief with extensions but my threshold for them is still probably higher than most judges

- Second rebuttal should frontline all responses on arguments they are going for

- Second rebuttal is allowed to read offensive overviews, but as with all overviews, they have to be well-warranted and developed

- First summary has to extend defense

- Weighing must begin in rebuttal

- If NEITHER team weighs in rebuttal, they can start weighing in summary. This is only if BOTH teams fail to weigh in rebuttal.

- If first rebuttal weighs and second rebuttal doesn't respond then the weighing is dropped and no new responses can be made to it

- Analytics are as valuable as carded responses if they have warrants and are logical deductions

- Analytics that are statements of fact won't be accepted, but logical/reasoned inferences are fine. For instance, you can't say "in 20 years, China will be a greater economic power than the US" without evidence, but you can say "considering the EU is a fundamentally multilateral organization, they would probably support pro-globalization policies" because that has actual reasoning to it

- If a framework is read, then arguments that link into it come first

Issues of how/when I will intervene:

- I will discount arguments that aren't warranted even if the other team doesn't call them out

- I will discount arguments that are made too late in the round even if the other team doesn't call them out

- If each team is winning different weighing mechanisms and there is no metaweighing done (i.e no comparison between weighing mechanisms) then the team that has won more mechanisms will win the weighing debate

- If each side has won the same amount of weighing mechanisms then I will just intervene along the lines of which mechanisms I think are more valuable in the context of the arguments. In other words, the decision will be my choice. That's just the consequence of not resolving the issues on the flow that you are supposed to.

- I will discount arguments that are not properly extended even if the other team doesn't call them out

- If you read a plan in PF without disclosing it, I will drop you the moment the other team breathes a word about how it's unfair

- Probably more that I'm forgetting but if I end up in those situations I will fully justify and explain the reasoning for my intervention to you in my RFD

Things I like to see in a round (I'll boost speaks if I see these but they won't affect my decision):

- Analytics

- Framing/smart weighing args

- Genuine understanding of history + world affairs beyond what evidence says

- No toxicity please; you need to learn how to argue maturely

Hey y'all! My name is Anya Gupta, they/them, been competing for Westwood HS PF for 4 years now.

Email chains: sharanya.gupta@gmail.com

Let's cut to the chase:

Public Forum Guidelines:

> 2nd rebuttal has to frontline.

Extensions: To some extent, treat me as a lay judge, extend your responses every speech. Extend and collapse in Summ/FF

I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through Summ & Final Focus.

Collapsing: PLEASE! Extend & collapse in your Summary, make this a simple ballot for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in Final Focus.

Sticky Defense: Nah, I'd say avoid it. The same thing as above, extend your responses every speech.

Signpost: Please signpost. Makes it much easier for me to cleanly recognize and vote.

Theory: TLDR: Explain it thoroughly. I don't love disclosure or paraphrase theory, and tbh won't buy it unless you have some good warranting. The main point is that if you are gonna run it, thoroughly explain your argument.

Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to Ks. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. If you are gonna run it, thoroughly explain your argument.

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/identity. 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 like humor. Use it to your advantage.

Please make crossfire bearable. If you use humor or be 'active' (present in the conversation, engaging actively, but not being extremely rude), I'll enjoy it some more. Also keep in mind that crossfire is not round-changing, everything I vote off of must be in summary speeches.

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 sharanya.gupta@gmail.com

former PFer and current extemper

flow judge for PF, flay judge for LD/CX. warranted arguments (including theory, K's, turns, extensions, frontlines, weighing etc) will be fully evaluated on my flow. don't run stupid or difficult to understand theory, be serious pls. if you are not black, running antiblackness on your black opponent = loss.  anything bigoted = loss. email chain? yes! annairmetova@gmail.com.

extemp: i will evaluate you on the logical flow of your content. that doesnt mean your content needs to be extremely complex. basically, what you say should make sense, and i should not be getting lost in your point. of course, good fluency/delivery is important too. but some errors in fluency are okay as long as it doesn't interfere with my understanding of what you're trying to communicate. btw: pro-china, russia, north korea, communism perspectives are okay with me (as long as it makes sense ofc). anything bigoted = last.

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.

sophomore PFer

tech > truth. I flow but not well so don't spread please or I will catch 40% of your argument. if you read things like theory or Ks lay them out clearly so I understand. as always, don't read anything homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/racist or anything of that manner. if it might be offensive, don't even think about it. I will vote you down for being a bad person substance-wise or in how you treat your opponents.

other than that, I'm not really picky. just do basic things like extending and weighing and generally debate well. grand cross is the bane of my existence so I'm perfectly fine with skipping it. pls just have fun debating and be nice to each other or I will get a headache thank u

GBX 2023

- send constructive and rebuttal docs with cards to both emails before you read them

- set up the chain BEFORE you come into round

- I have done a considerable amount of topic research

- I think open source is a good norm

Westwood '22

Coach for Westwood

Email for email chains (I want to be on it)/questions/anything really: amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com AND westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com

I will flow every speech and be focused on the round. I love the activity and know how much time you put in - you deserve a judge that pays attention and that cares. Go as fast as you want but be clear. More often than not you don't need to read 4 contentions or go as fast are you're going - quality is way more important than quality.

Speaks are a function of strategy (good collapsing, weighing, going for dropped turns and doing it well, etc) and practices (disclosure, cut cards, etc). I do not care what you wear. Speaks will range from 28 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.

I will research most, if not all, of the topics. So, you can assume I have background knowledge, but if you're reading something super specific explain it and your acronyms.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

If you want a short version - I agree with Akhil Bhale.

Non-negotiables:

- No prep stealing (it's quite obvious)

- Have the cut card for any piece of evidence that you read easily accessible (bare minimum), if your going to send links to large PDFs please strike me.

- I am uninterested in listening to and will not vote for arguments that endorse self-harm or suicide. Spark and other hypothetical impact turns are fine.

- Do not use racist/sexist/misogynistic rhetoric.

- I will "flow" cross-examination and it is binding (it exists for a reason). I hate it when teams don't understand their own arguments and this is the time to make it obvious. Probably won't be a voting issue but could be made into one.

"Preferables" (your speaks will automatically improve but I won't hold it against you unless convinced otherwise by theory etc.) :

- Disclose previously broken positions on the wiki (personally think new Affs/Negs are good but that is a debate to be had)

- Read from cut cards

- Send constructive and rebuttal docs with all the cards before your speech. I will never call for specific evidence after the round. If I think the evidence will decide or influence my decision I will go to speech docs to read it, if it isn't there too bad. Sending evidence after the round is just a way for debaters to send new evidence they didn't read, highlight evidence, cut parts out - I don't want to deal with that. TLDR: It helps both you and the debate if you send docs. I am a sucker for good evidence. If you have some really good evidence make sure I know about it - call it out by name. Again not an excuse for not debating - don't hide behind your evidence.

- Pre-flow before the round.

General:

- Tech > Truth (to an extent) - if an argument is dropped it is considered true but still has to be an argument for you to win on it (ie. it must be extended with uniqueness/link/internal link/impact), new implications or cross applications justify new responses to the specific implication. If you blow up a 2-second rebuttal blip - my threshold for responses won't be very high. More stuff on progressive arguments later.

- Read whatever you want to read - do your own thing. More on specific progressive arguments later.

- Open CX is fine (both people can speak/explain during cross-examination). Flex prep is fine and often good (ask questions during your prep time).

- 2nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline everything on the argument you're going for. Efficiency will be rewarded with good speaks. Defense is not sticky. Most "weighing" is new responses more on that later - at the latest 1st final but that's probably way too late and justifies 2nd final responses which isn't good for you anyway. 0 risk is a thing, but most defense will be evaluated on a probabilistic scale. 1st summary is the last time, I will flow new arguments. (There is a distinction between new arguments and new weighing - be careful.)

- Most substantive questions will be revealed on a probabilistic scale - comparative risk of the arguments. In 99% of debates, both sides will win some offense so comparative weighing and impact calculus can and often decides rounds. Procedural arguments often have to be evaluated on a yes/no basis (does the AFF violate the interp, RVIs or no RVIs, etc.)

- Turns. I love them but they are often done terribly. 99% of link turns need uniqueness to be offensive (ie. If the AFF tells me there is no negotiation in the status quo, and the NEG goes for a link turn about how the AFF makes negotiation worse, I have no idea what the impact to negative negotiation is.) Impact turns are also often interesting debates - if the link is contested (I hope it isn't if you're going for an impact turn) or if your opponents go for a different argument, then extend it clearly. If both teams seem to agree to the link and it just becomes an impact debate, I don't really care about link extensions too much. There are only 2 types of turns. Link turns and impact turns. New DAs and ADVs are often labeled as turns but you won't fool me and don't try - more on that later.

- Weighing. Also something I love but is often done wrong. There are three weighing mechanisms: probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a subset of those three (ie. scope is a subset of magnitude) or isn't a weighing mechanism (ie. clarity of the strength of the link or whatever people like to say.) Unless convinced otherwise (which is easily possible), link weighing/debating > impact weighing. I often find that nuclear war outweighs climate change or poverty outweighs death is irrelevant with good link weighing. I will give examples of link weighing below: at the latest these arguments need to be introduced by 1st summary. Probability link weighing are no-link arguments or "mitigatory defense." Stuff like "it is hard for terrorists to get BMDs because of monetary and technical constraints" is definitely link defense and needs to be in 1st summary at the latest. Probability is a function of how much defense you win on an argument, I will not arbitrarily assign probabilities (ie. say climate change is more probable than nuclear war) - you have to explain to me why that is the case which often is just link defense. Timeframe link weighing can be great. Arguments like the NATO bank at the earliest even if created won't get funding for years etc. Magnitude link weighing is really good and often underused (ie. "scope of solvency"). Solving bitcoin emissions won't solve climate change writ large etc. That being said, I can be convinced that impact weighing comes before link weighing. Arguments like extinction first and Bostrom and viable and can also be good. I hope everyone knows what impact weighing is so not going to go too in-depth on that. Last note - turns case is really, really good and also really, really underutilized in PF. Conflict probably ends negotiations, climate change probably makes war more likely, economic growth probably resolves underlying conditions for crime, etc. These types of arguments can really help you frame a round and establish why your came case comes first. Impact weighing and turns case can come by 1st final by the latest.

- Try or die can be convincing if done well. It is often a great strategy if you are going for an extinction impact and the NEG has conceded uniqueness. This is not an excuse for not frontlining - 0 risk is a thing. Timeframe is a really good weighing mechanism in try or die/extinction first debates and can often implicate probablity.

- Framing debates are also really interesting - extinction first etc. Framing arguments are not a substitute for link debate but a supplement. If you win policy paralysis and the other team wins a very large risk of their extinction scenario, the other team has probably won the round.

"Substance":

- Quality > quantity. Not too many interesting thoughts here. Good weighing and link debating wins rounds - avoiding clash, being shifty, and dumping blips doesn't.

- Empirics aren't arguments but can help your position combined with warrants. If you have good empirics that are specific to the mechanism of the resolution/your argument you're probably in a good spot.

- I could care less about quantified impacts. They are often random predictions by conspiracy theorists or terrible models. Even worse, debater math. I would much rather your impact be economic growth than some math you did with different studies and percentages. Extinction is an impact, recession is an impact, etc - I do not care about your 900 million card.

- Kicking case in reading a new DA/ADV in 2nd rebuttal is a bad idea. You essentially just wasted half of the debate. I will have a very low threshold for responses and encourage theory. This is different from reading 4 minutes of turns (ie. kicking case and just going for prolif good). I am perfectly fine with that, in fact, that would be quite fun.

Below are some thoughts on progressive argumentation. Don't read these arguments to win rounds - it's quite obvious. You disclose for the first time and read disclosure theory, change from full text to open source for 1 tournament to meet your interp, etc. I will still vote for it if you win but your speaks won't be great. Also, don't read progressive arguments just to beat novices - I will give you the worst speaks I possibly can.

Theory:

- I have mixed feelings on disclosing broken interps - could be convinced either way. In general, meta-theory is interesting and under-used.

- Topicality is also interesting. Define words in the resolution. Intent to define and evidence quality is extremely important. Unlike most theory debate, precision, your interpretation, and the evidence matter a lot more to me than the limits/ground debate.

- While I will not "hack" against these arguments be aware it is an uphill battle if you are defending paraphrasing good or disclosure bad. If you win your CI and everything on the flow of course I will still vote for you. If it is a close-round, you know which way I am probably going to vote.

- I default to competing interpretations, no RVIs, spirit of the interp, and drop the debater. I can easily be convinced otherwise. If paradigm issues are dropped/agreed upon they do not need to be extended in every speech. If the debate devolves to just theory under competing interps - I am voting for the better model of debate, I could not care that you won no RVIs (personally, no RVIs doesn't mean you can't win on a counter-interp in my mind)

- Reasonability is a good tool against mis-disclosure (open-source versus full text etc) and frivolous shells. You should still read a counter interp - but explain why the marginal differences in your models of debate are outweighed by substance crowd out etc.

- Read your shell the speech after the violation (if they paraphrase in 2nd rebuttal - feel free to read paraphrasing theory in 1st summary.) Theory after that is fairly late and really hard to have good clash, thus probably will result in intervention but if you think its necessary read it (bad language etc.)

- For some reason, small school counter-interps are quite popular and I get why (I read them myself a few times.) However, I am inclined to believe that arbitrary entry limits are just that arbitrary. Also, a lot of small schools are in big prep groups with a lot of resources, or just don't have a lot of people competing etc.

- Theory is unaccessible is a terrible argument - there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to any other argument.

- Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K's:

- "Substantive Ks" like Cap K or Security K are great but probably will just be evaluated as DAs or impact turns. Reading it as a K is often just an excuse to get out of the uniqueness debate, and when your alternative is just rejection, I don't think that gets you very far.

- Non-topical positions are also fine - I am familiar with most of the stuff people read in PF, but if you're reading high-theory or something confusing - slow down and explain it. I won't vote for something I can't explain back to you. This is my one exception to disclosing new Affs/Negs. I strongly believe non-topical positions should be disclosed before the debate to allow for clash.

- I slightly lean towards T/FW against K affs/negs probably because K debate in PF isn't done very well - but can easily be convinced otherwise. K teams should go for impact turns, weigh the K against the shell, and have a good CI that mitigates the limits offense. Do not read a K based on research about x argument and discourse and then make a prepouts bad argument on theory - that doesn't make too much sense. Weighing is really important in these rounds and I find that the theory teams get away with some stuff too easily (answer stuff like fairness is key to participation which comes before your method.)

- I am also down for a method v method debate, or PIKs etc. Conditionality is probably good against a new K aff/neg (ie. fine with T/FW combined with a PIK etc)

- Long pre-written overviews are not as useful as line-by-line and specific weighing.

- Also, please have an actual method. If you say "vote for me because I pointed this out," you probably won't get my ballot.

- Paraphrased Ks are a big no. Non-negotiable.

If you got this far, thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions feel free to email me whenever. I will always disclose unless the tournament explicitly tells me not to. Postrounding is good if it is constructive and educational - but this time, I will have already submitted my ballot and will not be able to change it. Feel free to email me questions after the round as well.

Inesh Nambiar (he/him) GWU '27

inesh1715@gmail.com add me on linkedin

Bold = tldr, Comic Sans = contextual info

speed is fine send doc or speak clear

don't get canceled anywhere near my round I hate paperwork and exclusion

tabula rasa!! (i.e. "nuke war good" uncontested = truth)

troll args get 30s lmfao, offensive args = L obvi

flexprep & give me a good ff

tagteam cross idc u hv choice in strat

chill w offcase don't spread I’ll throw my pen and scream. actually convince me if u rly wanna lol

On Ks: never evaluated non-t Ks. Explain it like the stupid beta cuck little pf debater I am (go slow, RoB, framing, etc) pls & tysm

gl hv fun

!!! CALL ME OUT IF I HARM/DISCOMFORT YOU!! I WILL NVR BE MAD. I IMPLORE U TO CRITIQUE ME bc I'm learning too !!!

Not as strict as Jouya but agree w a good amount of his philo (i.e. you prob won't lose the round bc you say "delink" but pls cut cards/disclose)

hey, i'm jess (she/her)

email: jessamine.qu0@gmail.com

2 years of pf at Westwood (current sophomore)

important stuff:

- tech > truth

- weigh (especially in summary and FF)

- collapse and make sure to extend warrants and impacts

- go line-by-line (big picture in the back half is okay if it's organized and covers everything it needs to)

- don't read progressive args if it's just for the win, make sure you understand the theory and Ks you read (and can explain them well since i'm not experienced in judging them)

- don't be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- everything should be carded unless it's a well-warranted analytic

other:

- don't spread unless you can stay coherent and you've sent speech docs

- don't bring up new args in the back half of the round

- 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline turns & the args you're going for

- please signpost, don't jump around the flow, offtime roadmaps are preferred

- i'll generally give high speaks unless you do something really horrible

- i might give higher speaks if you show me your pet :)

- be friendly, have fun, feel free to email me or ask me questions before round

anandsinghr5@gmail.com

Second rebuttal has to respond to turns or it is considered dropped

First summary has to extend defense aka no sticky defense

No new weighing in FF

No kritiks or theory

- experience in PF and CX

speed: I'm good with speed, do your best to be clear so I can flow all arguments

Clash as much as possible!

- If I ask for a card, please do your best to send the card to me!

- organization is key

- make sure impacts are clear in the round, really do your best to convince me as to why I should buy your impacts and arguments over your opponents' (that should be a given)

- clear voters in final focus

add me to the email chain: arielsuneducation@gmail.com

i'm a soph at ww (2 yrs in pf)

my pronouns are she/her (pls put ur pronouns in ur zoom name as well if possible)

if you are racist, homophobic, etc, i will drop you and you will get very very very bad speaks

tech>truth

don't

- make arguments about stuff (mostly groups of people) that you "care" about during the round but never think about outside of debate (performative arguments) ie don't talk about LGBTQ rights if you don't actually give a poop about them

- misrep evi

- spread for the sake of spreading because it's cool that debaters can talk fast (it's not pls shut up)

- take 74 years to pull up a card (it's fine if u don't have smth, i just won't evaluate it) bc you should be able to pull stuff up very fast

if you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round or email me or something

have fun!

don't run cap k stuff idek what that means

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

K:

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

email: HyWei787@gmail.com

tl:dr read the bolded parts

he/him

tech>truth, unless if it's blatantly false

email chains are strongly recommended

for in-house:

IF YOU DONT GIVE CASE + SPEECH DOCS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE AND REBUTTAL YOU GET 25'S

MAKES ROUND REPORTS EASIER FOR EVERYBODY

Please collapse

If something isn't extended well enough I won't vote on it-Case extensions need to contain uq, warrant, and impact and must be in summary and FF

Defence is NOT sticky-3 minute Summary should be plenty of time to extend everything you need

Summary and FF should mirror each other

2nd rebuttal must frontline

I prefer impacts that have quantifications-i.e. tell me via carded evidence how many people you're actually impacting, don't say "The whole of the United States" (exception for structural violence args)

Unless your off is directly responsive to your opponent's case, don't read it

You can go fast, but don't spread

Warrants are super important-heap them everywhere

Compare your weighing-don't just yell buzzwords like "probability"

Weighing is a good way to win rounds you shouldn't have won-weigh early and use comparative weighing and/or metaweighing

Frameworks/Observations/Overviews are cool, but the more nonsensical they are the more leniency I will give to responses.

If you go for framework you must win a link into your framework to win (I know this is different than most judges, but saying we should prioritize x and then not solving for x doesn't make sense in a real-world context)

Conceding a delink/nonunique to kick out of a turn is recommended (and if your opponents do that don't extend your turn :<)

If you have to you can delink your own argument to kick out of a turn-I don't mind

If your warrants don't make any sense I will be confused

I will evaluate Prog args, but I might not understand them

(for in-house only: if you're gonna read prog args:

Theory is cool

Kritiks are okay, but your alt has to actually do something

T-Shells-just call them out for being non-topical

Tricks-no)

(competing interps > reasonability)

Time yourself

Please don't hold your timer up if your opponent is 5 seconds overtime-kinda rude imo

If they're more than 15 seconds over time you have the right to cut them off

I don't care if evidence was "stolen"-it's free estate

Speaks will be awarded based on how well you debated, how well you spoke, and how perceptually dominant you were

Cross-don't turn it into a shouting match, but feel free to roast your opponents if they're being stupid

I default Con (don't make me default please)

If you have any questions about my paradigm, ask!

P.S. Feel free to postround, but I won't change my decision

I'm Tech > Truth almost all of the time, but when stuff starts to get super convoluted I'll prefer empirical arguments over other ones.

1. Collapse in summary

2. Sticky Defense is fine

3. Both evidence AND arguments need to be extended throughout the round; don't just say "extend Wallheimer 12" but also tell me what the card argues and the implications.

4. No new offense in summary.

5. Weighing is super important; make sure to start weighing in Summary (some teams like to do it in Rebuttal and that's fine too). Without weighing, I'll have a lot of trouble evaluating exactly why your arguments mean I should vote for your team. For this reason, also make sure to do Impact Calculus and comparative analysis between impacts.

I should be pretty fine with speed, as long as it's flow-able. I'll make sure to tell you if I find the speed too fast.

Theory-wise, I'm only really educated about Paraphrase Theory, and I'll willingly evaluate it if run. As for other forms of theory (such as Disclosure Theory), I'll probably not really be able to understand it all that well so my advice is to just not run it.

And finally, just like many other judges, I will immediately drop any team if they make any offensive arguments (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).