Southlake Carroll '22, UTD '26

nehapaulina04@gmail.com (put me on the chain please! and reach out to me if you have any questions/concerns/literally anything)

Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 5 years, 3 in PF and 2 in worlds. In worlds, I did the ¼ and 3 and I won TFA state in 2021. In PF, I qualified for TFA state in my freshman and sophomore years and I broke at a few bid tournaments. I’ve been judging a mix of PF and WSD ever since I graduated. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Sanjay Shori, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala.

TLDR; tech > truth, down for anything that isn't offensive/exclusionary

My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and preferences can be overridden by good debating. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, the ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.

I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one.

Things that matter for both PF and Worlds: I couldn’t care less about what you wear or whether you sit or stand, please do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable. I would classify myself as tech > truth, but my threshold for tech decreases the more you forgo truth. In simpler terms, run whatever argument you want, but the more ridiculous it is, the more I’m willing to buy responses to that argument. Speaks: I think speaker points are a really dumb system so I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers but speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(. if you make a joke about/somehow make fun of anbu subramanian: for pfers, auto 30. for wsders, +1 speaker point

-PF-

It’s been a while since I’ve been involved in PF, so you’d probably best classify me as a flay judge. While I’m not up-to-date on the topic, I catch on to arguments pretty quickly. I can keep up with some speed but if you’re planning on going >200wpm, please send a doc!!

Substance: Love a good substance debate. No new frontlines to any responses from first rebuttal and no new defense in second summary. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Disads/offensive overviews are fine in first rebuttal but not second. No sticky defense. No new arguments (including weighing) in final focus.

Cross: I can’t even put into words how much I don’t care about cross. I’m not voting off anything in cross so if anything important was said, it needs to be in a speech. Please feel free to use cross for prep if you want (#abolishgrandcross), however if you choose to do it, whatever you say is binding.

Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF, but tbh I'm probably not a good judge for it. You can make “bUt tHiS iS pF" as a response but I won’t like it. If you're reading multiple off-case arguments please make it clear when you're going from one to the next.

Theory: I’m most familiar with basic theory shells such as disclosure, paraphrase, etc, but you would make my life 10x easier if you ran them in shell format. I default drop the debater (except on T where I default drop the argument), competing interps, and no RVIs, but if you can’t read and warrant paradigm issues you’re getting 20s. If you're planning on running a more complex shell then please slow down and overexplain it. Please clearly delineate between the different parts of the shell. I'm not up-to-date enough on current pf norms to have many set beliefs, but I do believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is usually bad. This is not to say you can't win against these shells with me as a judge, but it might be an uphill battle.

Kritiks: A lot of Ks in PF are bad. Your alt needs to solve. I have a very basic understanding of basic Ks so you should definitely really overexplain (especially high theory and non-T/performance Ks) and send me a doc. If you read a floating PIK in PF i’m dropping your speaks. ROTB is fine as long as you run it properly. Perfcons on both theory and Ks are very persuasive. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW like saying it’s violent will annoy me.

Everything else: run them at your own risk just please overexplain

Evidence and Prep: I expect all evidence to be sent cut w/ tags. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to send evidence after your opponent calls for it, I'll start docking your speaks. I will read all evidence sent on the chain, and will ask to see any other cards only if I am explicitly told to do so. please extend ev by author name/year AND what the card said! I try my best to write down all author names but if you're going too fast I won't be able to catch everything (hint: you can avoid this issue by sending a doc!). I don't like evidence debates but I understand they happen a lot in PF - indicts are fine but I would much rather hear defense. Flex prep is fine. I won't time your prep but I will not be lenient on any instances of obvious prep stealing.

-WSD-

Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.

Content: Like I mentioned earlier, I’m tech > truth, so feel free to run whatever argument you want as long as it’s well-warranted. This is a hot worlds take but I strongly believe and will die on the hill that principle arguments are outweighed by the practical 100% of the time. That being said I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument) and I'll evaluate them just like any other argument, but if you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal.

Strategy: This is the aspect of the debate I pay the most attention to since at the end of the day, I am a flow judge and whoever wins on the flow wins the round. I absolutely love seeing weighing, I think it’s a really important aspect of debate that a lot of WSDers ignore. If you win the weighing, and you win your link into the weighing, you win the round. Please be comparative to your opponent’s specific arguments instead of just repeating yours over and over. Worlds arguments are stock and repetitive 90% of the time, so I absolutely love seeing unique strats. I also love it when teams make a clear worlds comparison analysis. Please, for the love of god, resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over.

Style: Putting on a good performance may get you higher speaks, but it won’t win you the round. That being said, I do appreciate humor and seeing your personality in the speech, as long as you don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. The main way I award style points is by how organized and easy to flow your speeches are. I genuinely don’t understand why this activity is so bad at signposting, please tell me where you are on the flow or else I won’t know what to do with your argument.

Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means)

This is my actual paradigm

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Add me to the email chain: jgold0202@gmail.com

Warrant your arguments!!!!! Spreading is fine, just slow down for tags and if someone says "clear," you just gotta slow down.

Please weigh and start early. You wont win if you dont weigh.

I'll vote on Ks, I have a lot of experience with them in PF, but I'm in no way a K hack. If you don't extend, weigh, or win your K, I will not vote on it and my threshold for K debate is pretty high. That being said, please read whatever you feel comfortable with and I will try my best to adapt to you.

Anything not frontlined in second rebuttal is dropped, but I will not make extensions for anyone (defense is not sticky)

I will vote on theory if it is won cleanly, although I don't trust myself to resolve an extremely messy theory debate (basically, debaters who do not understand that theory needs to be weighed and extended like every other argument should never read theory in front of me)

Be nice; the only thing cornering your opponent in cross does is reflect on you poorly. If you are cleanly winning an argument, I will know-- you don't have to be mean about it.

I presume if I have to, but nothing is more annoying than "presumption warrants." if a round is messy, it is your job to at least try to clear it up.

Anything -ist = L20s.

I debated for Horace Mann in NYC and was the president of my team senior year.

Treat me like a flay judge only in the sense that I prefer slower, well-warranted rounds over the current weird tech meta of dumping as many arguments as possible and making rounds incredibly messy. This doesn't mean that I don't know what's happening on the flow (i.e. don't drop turns or responses because you're debating as you would in front of a lay judge) – just slow down, speak like you would to a normal person, and extend well/provide warrants for everything you say (especially including frontlines and weighing). The more you explain something, the more I'm likely to vote for it.

If you want me to call for a card, tell me to in a speech. Don't read progressive arguments in front of me. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc so just speak at a reasonable pace. If you have any other questions about my preferences, feel free to ask me before the round.

email: abhiram.masam@gmail.com

standard tech judge. generally look to weighing first, so please weigh and make my decision as simple and easy as possible. signpost so I can follow you pls! wont evaluate theory at all. defense is only sticky if second rebuttal doesn't frontline. any offensive behavior is rewarded with an L 20, and if the round is made unsafe the round ends there and I'll respond appropriately to the situation at hand. please preflow before the round and please do not argue any debater math in front of me. tysm!

•  
• special things for nsd:

• running theory/prog on lambda and kappa kids will result in an L 20
• the threshold for responses to progressive debate is super low if you read prog on a team that is very very clearly unprepared to respond
• no need to shake my hand! seriously all good! ily all
• do not read gentrification good in front of me, it will be rewarded with an L 25! You can ask me questions about why I feel this way if you want but j don't read it. 

Hey, I’m Malcolm (he/him) and I’m a senior PFer from J.R. Masterman High school.

Add me to the email chain/doc (if you want): malcolm.millerr@gmail.com. Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm/other preferences before round.

***tl,dr; safety is very important, collapse please, don’t lie about evidence, tech>truth, weigh please, i’ll evaluate anything.***

Safety:

Safety is my number one priority in the round. My reactions to situations may vary. I might drop you. I might tank your speaks. It depends on the severity.

So don’t do or say anything that’s racist, sexist, ableist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, etc.

I’m generally non-interventionist, but I’ll break that practice if it means that I might be able to prevent any (more) harm from happening in the round especially if it looks like someone is having a negative reaction to the harmful thing.

Cross:

I’m paying attention to cross but it won’t affect my decision. If it’s important make sure it’s in speeches. I think that cross should be more fun and if you make me laugh during cross it’ll boost my mood and your speaks.

Frontlining:

Bestie.. please frontline in 2nd rebuttal or first summary.

Collapsing:

I don’t have a preference if you collapse in rebuttal or summary, but you really should collapse. It’ll probably make the round more clear for both of us.

Evidence Ethics:

I’ll only call for evidence if (a) I’m asked to or (b) it’s the deciding factor in the round. I hate when people lie about evidence. It’s annoying and it’s not fair. I’ll handle this by dropping you, tanking speaks, or dropping the argument (I might combine some of these if it’s particularly egregious).

Timing/Prep:

I’ll time you, but please time yourself. Don’t hesitate to ask if you lost track of prep or don’t remember how long a speech is. It happens <3

Anything else:

Speed is fine, I’ll yell clear if I need a speech doc. Feel free to offer it too.

Tech> truth

I’ll flow.

Weighing is my favorite part of rounds. You should do it, especially if the round is close.

Roadmap, or don’t. I don’t really care.

I’ll assume util unless you give me good warranting otherwise.

RFD/Disclosing:

I love giving verbal rfd so i’ll do it unless you tell me not to. The written rfd on tab might be lacking (sorry), but if you have any specific questions shoot me an email.

I’ll probably disclose if I’m allowed. If you don’t want me to just let me know :)

Progressive args:

I’ll be fine evaluating any theory just let me know how to flow it. In general, I think paraphrasing is good and small schools shouldn’t have to disclose but I’ll be tech>truth/my feelings. If you make me evaluate K’s/tricks/etc. I’ll do my best but I wouldn’t run them in front of me if I were you.

warrant

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

---

also, if we can get the round done in under 45 minutes, everyone gets 30 speaks

Hi I'm Ananya! I debated LD in high school, so I understand the nuances and norms of the structure. Don't expect me to be an excellent judge for a highly nuanced technical debate. However, I will try my very best to evaluate any type of debate you'd like to have.

theory, Ks, etc are fine, just explain them very thoroughly. Spreading is fine and I'll call clear/slow if needed.

if u have further questions abt my judging preferences, feel free to ask before round or email me (ananyanatchukuri@gmail.com)

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com AND georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com (if policy).

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. I don't have much topic knowledge.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. You must disclose anything that isn't new.

4. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred. If this is helpful, I am most persuaded by teams that debate like: Georgetown AM/BK/KL, Dartmouth SV/TV, Wake EF, Harvard BS.

Policy stuff:

I judge this most.

I basically only read cards as a tiebreaker for technical debating in close debates.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

Arguments about the procedure of debate/debating counterplans are more persuasive to me as theory, not competition. This is not a particularly strong opinion.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Planless affs:

I don't judge this much. My voting record is 50/50. I vote affirmative either when the negative drops a trick, or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative. Similarly, if the 2NR doesn’t go for T, it will be hard to persuade me to vote on disads to their interpretation.

K:

I judge this a bit more. My voting record leans slightly policy. This is broadly a reflection of who has done the better technical debating in the particular rounds I have judged. I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy critiques that make aff specific and nuanced arguments for why the affirmative is bad, premised on framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research or justify policy.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan.

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

Contact: colewoody1022@gmail.com

P.S. Most of this Paradigm is taken from my teammate, Katherine Yue

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

I can flow your overall case and round, as long as you aren't spreading. Keep in mind that I may miss something, so never assume I'll make a connection that should've been made by either you or your partner in the round. For example, if your opponent concedes a response or drops an argument, let me know so I can make certain I have that written down, if you don't then it's a 50/50 on something that could potentially win you a round.

Constructive

-I'll evaluate any argument/response well explained the first time it is brought up and extended & weighed later on.

-Please don't spread. You can send a speech doc if you plan on it but I'll probably drop your speaks and not get half of it because flowing off a document kind of ruins the whole speech aspect of debate (but I'll try my best).

Crossfire

-I don't flow cross, but it can affect your speaks. Don't be overly aggressive, if you have to cut someone off do it nicely. Don't try and force your opponents into conceding something here. If an important point is brought up, bring it up in a speech, because I won't do it for you.

-Cross isn't a time to ask for evidence, do that during prep not CX.

-Don't leave empty space within cross, if your opponent doesn't have a question, then you should be prepared to continue poking holes in their case, don't waste what little time you have.

-Don't be afraid to have fun during cross, if you want to make jokes and laugh then go ahead, this time is meant to help you not me

Rebuttal

-Everything said in 1st rebuttal must be responded to in the following speech (2nd rebuttal) or I consider it conceded. Don't try to respond later/access something that was attacked. If your opponent drops attacks, tell me and extend it!

-Interact with your opponent's arguments directly! Everyone reads generic blocks, but if your responses interact directly with their evidence/specific link chain, I'll bump your speaks. I think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

Summary

-You should collapse! Extend offense & defense, weighing needs to start here if not in rebuttal.

-Don't bring up new things here unless front lining.

-Extend everything you want me to vote on! I'll only look to things said earlier in the round if there is nothing left for me to vote off at the end (unlikely).

Final focus

-I really like a review of your points and attacks that still stand, but I primarily want voters and weighing to happen in this speech. Everything extended should be from summary, including weighing.

-This is the most important speech, in my opinion, so make sure to drive through your voters for the round if you want to win.

Weighing

-Don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, explain why what you are saying is true, and compare your impacts with theirs, explain yours are more significant.

-Logical weighing (xyz will or won't happen/this is better long-term) is okay, if well explained, but I prefer statistics/contextualized impact weighing.

-If both teams end up at the same impact, I have to look to the stronger/best-defended link chain. But in general, weigh on impacts but also explain your access to those impacts.

-Do not! weigh on arguments you have no access to.

Progressive arguments

-Since it's PF I'll only evaluate dis-ads and theory shells if a severe violation has occurred (i.e. the opponent discriminated against you on sexuality, race, etc. )

-I will not evaluate theory unless prior consent has been given by either party before the round has started (I need to hear both sides firmly agree, the absence of no doesn't mean yes)

-I prefer substance over everything

-I'm more of a trad judge, so try to keep that in mind when running progressive args

Other

-Please pre-flow before the round! It makes things run a lot faster in the long term.

-Give me the order before speeches (Off-the-clock roadmaps <3).

-I'll try to disclose every round and give an oral rfd (If allowed).

-I won't usually call for cards unless I'm told to or it's heavily weighed on. If a card I call for is misused I'll drop all arguments involving it. Paraphrased cases are okay, but cut and use evidence fairly.

-I firmly believe in tech>truth, so if something is false or you think I need to call for evidence, tell me, because I won't unless you give a valid reason as to why I should.

-Please ask questions/postround if you want, but be nice.

-I'll time every speech/prep but I expect you to as well. 10+ seconds overtime=lower speaks

-Voting for you should be easy, so weigh, extend, refute, do all the things you should in a typical round. If the round gets messy to the point where there is nothing I can vote on, I'll default to the first speaking team.

Speaks

-Everyone's speaks start at 28, I'll drop/raise as the round progresses.

-Follow the paradigm!

-Read content warnings as needed

-Most importantly, be respectful, nice, & overall don't take things too seriously and you'll end with high speaks.

-Please make sure to either find something enjoyable or educational about your round

Hi! I'm Zara (she/her) and I debated Public Forum for four years at Hackley School and am a current freshman at Tufts University.

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Please include me on the email chain zarayusaf05@gmail.com

Progressive Argumentation:

You can read progressive arguments but I don't know much about them, so just make sure to explain them really well. I don't like frivolous theory, but will evaluate theory if there is actual abuse in the round.

Speed:

Send a speech doc if you speak over 250 wpm.

General:

Have a good narrative. I think the best rounds are when debaters carry a narrative throughout a round and collapse on what will advance their story.

Please weigh!! Weighing is super important and is the first thing I look to when evaluating a round. I like weighing that is comparative and falls within your narrative.

Please read a content warning/send an opt out form if you plan to read potentially harmful/triggering content.

Frontline all offense and defense on the argument that you are going for in second rebuttal.

Warrants > Evidence.

Please preflow before round!!

Please be nice to your opponents and to me - we are here to have fun and learn :)