Cathedral Classic Round Robin
2021 — Online, DC/US
PF RR Judge Pool Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
email me docs: firstname.lastname@example.org
i debated for 4 years at cosby high school from 2016-2020 and did pf, ld, and policy - i currently do apda at w&m!
read a 30 speaks blip, i hate assigning speaks and think the system is really broken (if you don't know what this means put the following in your constructive and i'll give you and everyone else in the round the max speaks: "Speaker points are broken - unconscious prejudices guide judges into giving higher speaks to whoever best fits the white, masculine standard of what it means to be a good speaker - default to giving everyone 30s for inclusivity) (if you don't do this i'll know you didn't read my paradigm :()
let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout
feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are
i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.
how do i decide who i vote for?
first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)
next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are sus
then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability)
what types of arguments do i like?
i will vote on anything that isn't problematic and i don't hack for any particular type of argument - i'm comfortable evaluating theory, kritiks, or any type of progressive argument because that is what my background is in.
the substance based debates i find myself enjoying the most generally incorporate some form of structural violence framing, i won't hack for or against it, that's just what the most interesting rounds to me look like. i find myself enjoying rounds where teams collapse on turns in the latter half too, this seems to happen pretty rarely in pf
the kritikal arguments i'm most familiar with are queer pess, baudrillard, and psychoanalysis, but i think you should always explain every kritikal argument as if i'm a lay judge because i think kritiks in pf are too often run against teams that don't understand the arguments.
the theory arguments i find myself agreeing with the most are disclosure, any type of gendered language bad, paraphrasing bad, and trigger warning theory - again i won't hack for or against any of these, i'm just as willing to vote on disclosure bad as i am disclosure good - the exception for this is trigger warning theory, if you trigger someone and they make it clear they don't feel safe, i will drop you, end the round early, and give you the lowest speaks i can w/o having to justify it to tab.
i'll also begrudgingly vote on frivolous theory or trix if they're won - i'm super open to impact turns based on this type of argumentation though and feel like most of them tend to be true
defense is sticky - i've been asked to include that turns are not defense
frontline in second rebuttal
don't read offensive overviews or disads in second rebuttal
i won't vote on a piece of offense unless it is in summary, and final focus - that includes the warranting for it, not just a blippy extension
i don't care if you read theory in shell format or more simply - all that's important is that all the crucial parts of the argument are there in some capacity - that means i want some interpretation on how you think debate should look, how the other team violates this, the reasons that debate should look this way, and why i should drop the other team for it
if you're going to read theory that is just like i should drop someone because they break x rule (maybe like "this tournament says u can't read counterplans so drop them for reading one"), you need to justify why the rule is good or following rules in general is good. just the fact that it is a rule is not persuasive to me, i don't care
drop the arg
Hi!!! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I debated 4 years of PF on the national circuit at Durham Academy. I now debate APDA at Brown.
*Moving this to the top of my paradigm bc I think it's the primary way in which my paradigm differs from others: 2nd rebuttal should frontline case - yes, including defense. Nothing is sticky. Every speech must respond to everything in the speech before (with obvious exceptions like 2nd constructive and you don't have to extend case in rebuttal). As a rule of thumb, you cannot introduce any new arguments unless they are directly responsive to new arguments from the speech before, including indicts (ie. don't call case evidence after rebuttal, you had your chance). If you have previously had an opportunity in speech to respond to an argument and you didn't, it is dropped for the round. New responses to new implications are fine.
* Here's how I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting this is just my default (same goes for anything in my paradigm)
* For online tournaments specifically, please put me on the email chain: email@example.com.
You can consider me a flow judge in that I will flow the debate and consider myself a somewhat "technical" debater, but don't overestimate my proficiency. If I don't understand an argument on my flow, I will be much much less likely to vote on it, even if it is super "clean". Basically that just means have warrants.
BE RESPECTFUL!!! If you are super aggressive or rude, the debate becomes less fun for everyone involved. Being firm in crossfire is fine, but the more actively respectful you are, the higher I'll bump your speaks.
No judge is truly tabula rasa, but I vote in the way that I believe has the LEAST intervention - if you want me to know something, TELL ME. I refuse to do the logical work for you.
That being said, I will automatically drop you with the lowest possible speaks if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory in the round.
I believe warrants are the most important part of the debate. PF is supposed to be about logic and reasoning. Give me clash! This also means extend warrants - if you don't remind me how your argument relates back to medicare for all in summ/FF you don't have a link even if you extend every card in case.
SIGNPOST!!! Tell me what you're responding to and number your responses - make your speeches organized and make it easy for me to follow along on the flow. You don't want me to get lost!
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. If you don't do the comparative for me then I will have to do it myself and I'll probably make a weird decision that you don't like. Offense that is weighed will always come first in my evaluation of the flow - I don't care how many of your contentions they completely dropped if they have won a single argument and have proven that it is more important (in this way, weighing can function as "terminal defense"). If your opponents do their own weighing, compare your weighing to theirs (meta-weigh!!). In general, I will always find a way to vote on a weighed argument that appears to be a wash before an unweighed argument that is conceded. If I'm not given meta-weighing and the competing weighing is a wash I default to the earliest weighing brought up in the round, though I try my best not to do this. If there has been NO weighing in the round, then and only then will I evaluate new weighing in FF, but I will have a high threshold for voting on it.
I view weighing as two tiered: link level and impact level. I generally vote for the team who has proven they have the BEST link into the BEST impact. To be clear, I look at what impact is the strongest in the round based on your impact calc and then determine which link into that impact is best based on your competing link comparisons. If you don't do that work for me I get to pick and you won't like that.
Remember - weighing is also an argument that needs a WARRANT, don't just yell scope and magnitude at me, explain HOW your argument outweighs using these mechanisms, WHY these mechanisms are important, and make this weighing COMPARATIVE - ie. don't just say we affect a lot of people say we affect MORE people than their argument.
Here are my thoughts on probability weighing specifically:
Given the above bit about weighing tiers, I generally go with magnitude > probability if there's no meta-weighing or nuanced comparative analysis done on the util scale (ie. I'm always gonna vote for a tiny chance of preventing war over a 100% chance someone gets a papercut). Probability is generally extremely hard to quantify which makes probability weighing difficult for the judge to objective evaluate except as a comparative - ie. it is fairly easy to say your argument is higher probability than theirs, but not how much higher. This is why I don't love probability weighing on it's own unless you give me meta-weighing etc. and generally prefer it as link-level weighing or a way of sorting out a washed magnitude debate (though rare).
If you win your link, you win your impact - that is IF your link triggers your impact in full. In this way, I will evaluate a nuclear war scenario that is conceded (thus having 100% strength of link) as having the same probability as any other argument with 100% link. However, if their link is a "probability claim" - ie. if their link evidence says voting for them will increase the probability of x by y percent, then probability weighing is justified (assuming the argument you are using to weigh against it has 100% link). Defensive responses can function as probability mitigation (ie. "this is not very likely because of xyz") which can lend themselves to probability weighing as well if they aren't implicated as terminal defense (ie. "this will never happen because of xyz")
If both teams are going for the same impacts (climate change is a common example on some topics), weigh links and internal links instead - AKA who best gets to that impact. (THIS INCLUDES LINK-INS/PREREQS AND TURNS)
What is allowed / What I won't evaluate:
2nd rebuttal should frontline case - yes, including defense.
Any offense extended across two speeches without a response is clean and I won't evaluate substantive responses on it afterwards (though you can probably get away with marginal defensive claims like 'they have no brightline' or 'they never tell you how much of their impact they access', etc. and defense disguised as weighing, just not like a new delink or turn or anything).
No brand new frontlines in second summ. (see below)
NOTHING IS STICKY. If something is dropped in ANY speech after case (with the exception of case EXTENSIONS for either rebuttal) it is done for the round. For example, if second rebuttal frontlines their C1 and drops all defense on their C2, first summary doesn’t need to worry about their C2 anymore - it’s dropped. This will force you to collapse. New frontlines in second summary won’t be evaluated unless they’re responding to new implications of responses or ‘backlines’. Basically every speech should respond to the speech before and make extensions (again, except for rebuttals which need not extend case)
POINT OUT concessions - this solidifies them on my flow and allows me to catch those that I might have missed before.
Second Rebuttal offensive overviews are fine as long as they are DEPENDENT on some part of the opponents' case strategy, ie. they must concede a link or link in in some tangible way. New independent contentions are a no especially if you kick case for this strat, though I have a decently low threshold for linking an offensive overview to the opposing case. If you think a second rebuttal offensive overview is abusive, point it out to me and tell me it creates time skew - you don't have to make a full-fledged theory arg but at least give some reason why I should not evaluate the arg, I am very unlikely to intervene on these kinds of arguments otherwise even if my paradigm says I think they are abusive if independent. Point out the abuse for me.
I do usually keep time on speeches (BUT PLEASE PLEASE KEEP TIME YOURSELVES) and I tend to notice when a speech goes over time but we're all fallible and I give a bit of wiggle room (5-10s) before I stop flowing. HOWEVER, if you point out that the opponent's argument was over time in your speech, even by like 2 seconds, I won't evaluate it. This is hard to prove and rather reliant on me having caught that, so to ensure that it might be beneficial to hold up a fist or a timer when time runs out but don't be annoying about it.
Paraphrasing is fine but I will drop speaks (and the evi) if you are found to be miscutting it or aggressively power-tagging it. When calling for cards, please find them quick. I'm pretty lenient and won't cut speaks for extra time spent finding a card unless it takes more than a couple of minutes, but in general it's a good idea to have your cards (either in cut card form or PDF) easily accessible and ready to go in case they are called.
I won't call for cards of my own volition. I will, however, call for any cards that I am told to call for at any point in the round, unless it becomes entirely irrelevant for the decision - ie. the argument is dropped, etc. As a general rule of thumb, I HATE having to evaluate evidence to decide the round so I will look for any way of deciding without the evidence before I actually read it, if my interpretation of the evidence matters to the outcome of the round it probably means I'm intervening and you've messed up, make it cleaner and don't make me do the work.
If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) and please ask your opponents if they want to be included in the email chain. If you're going to go speedy, do so with caution: Don't spread on debaters who are significantly less experienced or otherwise unprepared for speed. 300 WPM is comfy, I can take a bit faster as long as it's crystal clear. Sending a speech doc is not an excuse to sacrifice clarity - I'll still be listening and if I can't understand you or if you're leaving your opponents in the dust without sending them a speech doc, I will stop flowing. My threshold for spreading clarity is pretty high, so unless you are very clear, I will probably slightly reduce your speaks.
Extensions preferences -
I HAVE DROPPED WAY TOO MANY TEAMS FOR NOT EXTENDING A PART OF THEIR ARGUMENT IN A BACK HALF SPEECH!!! You need extension start to finish every back half speech even if it's all conceded. Link to terminal impact, don't cut corners. Like make it concise (I try to get my students to give 1 sentence extensions) but don't miss things.
Example: (Trump should not label the Houthis a terrorist group) Labelling the Houthis a terrorist group bans American aid organizations from cooperating with them in any capacity, creating an unclear legal barrier that will deter food aid from entering Yemen, exacerbating the famine costing millions of lives.
I don't really care how you extend, but extending the general idea of an argument (concise link, internal link, impact, weighing) is usually more efficient than extending card by card and I evaluate each equally. Do with that what you will. That said, you still have to extend every part of your arguments including WARRANTS - think "that's because..." after each claim extension. If there is only one impact in the round (ie. everyone is going for nuke war --> extinction AND ONLY THAT IMPACT) you don't need to extend the internal warranting for it (ie. because of ozone layer destruction and nuclear winter). Similar thing for framing - ie. if both teams concede and explicitly agree with framing like "evaluate impacts to minority groups first" neither side needs to extend warrants into it unless the warrants in some way contest the opposing teams interpretation / links in to the framing.
I will evaluate prefiat arguments like theory or Ks. I have a slightly higher threshold for explanations and general warranting for such arguments not because I don't like them but simply because I have a bit less experience with them. That said, I'm pretty confident evaluating progressive argumentation - more theory than Ks but I can handle either. I'm not gonna know the literature but if you explain the argument well, I'll vote for it, just slow down and be a bit more thorough with these kinds of progressive arguments.
If you have any questions (before OR after the round) please feel free to ask!
PS - Check out Beyond Resolved! It is a student-run organization that is focused on empowering women and other minorities in debate and it has some amazing resources for all debaters. I would definitely encourage you to look through their website and follow them on instagram!! They now have a scholarship program too you can apply for or help out externally by offering donations to beyond-resolved on Venmo.