Tabroom.com

The CTD Septober Public Forum Warmup

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ayush Agarwal Hire 8 rounds

Laura Aybar Hire

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 5:43 AM EDT

Hello debaters,

I am currently a 2nd year Medical Student. I've been actively participating in Model UN, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas for 4 years; I'm currently coaching and judging Public Forum. Likewise, I like to think of debate as an empowering experience for both the debaters and the judges, so be respectful to the activity we all love.

I love clashes between arguments; boil down your arguments and tell me explicitly why you won the round and on which terms. Explain and analyze every piece of information even though I might already know what you're talking about. I deeply enjoy the use of fallacies while refuting evidence. I'm most likely to vote for you if your argument is wrapped around the extensive use of statistics and logic. Furthermore, I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you could read at a leveled speed and tone; the debate is not about throwing arguments at my face, but about connecting them to the resolution at hand.

I understand the frustration of debaters when they encounter biased judges, this is why I completely place my beliefs aside; feel free to run any argument you like, at the end of the day the ballot doesn't depend on your beliefs, but on how you run your arguments and apply your knowledge into the round. I don't like Ks, I think they take away from the value of Public Forum, nevertheless, I will flow them (I just might not buy them). Likewise, I like to say I'm tech> truth, but if the tech is ridiculous, I'm not buying it.

Specifics on speeches:

1. I weigh the round on the established framework and how the speakers appeal to it.

2. All impacts should be warranted, linked, and with In-text citations to be valuable in my ballot.

3. All forms of refutation are good with me as long as they are sustained with factual evidence and quantification

4. Arguments dropped in the summary will not be taken into consideration in my ballot.

5. The Summary should be a weighing machine in the round, weighing done only in the final focus will not be considered in the round.

6. I am very flexible when it comes to final focus, so just tell me why you won, and you should be good to go.

General:

1. CXs can be as aggressive as you want but don't cross the line. Being disrespectful will have effects on your speaker points. (pls make it interesting for me)

2. Time yourself

3. If you are asked for evidence try to show it quickly. (I'll prefer if you say you can't find it, instead of spending 5 mins of the round looking for it)

4. Personal insults, projections against debaters, intentional misgendering, discrimination, or pettiness will be penalized by taking speaker points off (and you'll probably lose the round).

5. Be on time to the round.

6. I don't flow CXs, but I do take them into consideration for weighing my ballot.

7. Please don't add me to email chains or links. Just share the evidence in the round, and I'll be happy.

8. As I said, I've been debating for a long time, so don't try to create PF rules, I know them.

Have fun, debate is a wonderful experience!

(+1 speaker point if you make a Friends or TikTok reference)

Stefan Boone Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 23, 2022 at 5:30 AM EDT

add me to the chain: stefan.boone12@gmail.com

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense in the summary speeches. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your point and persuading me more. (However, dropped defense sticks to infinity if it goes unresponded to by the other team)

More specifically, you must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense and responding to frontlines that are made, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus, because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and I factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments)

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well With this in mind, there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interepretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

i'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well

Miscellaneous:

i vote for the neg on presumption unless warranting given for a different way of presuming.

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am mostly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

Speaks - ill give the highest the tournament allows me to

I cannot keep up with speeds over around 900 words /four minute. Give a speech doc if u plan on going faster.

please ask any questions you may have before the round

Camila Concepcion Hire

Mike Girouard Taiwan Junior High Independent

Last changed on Wed October 14, 2020 at 7:49 PM CDT

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

Ojas Gupta Hire

Ankit Kapoor Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:45 AM MDT

Summary

Debate is a game, play to win.

Tech > Truth

Tabula Rasa

Meta-Weighing Good

Sign-Post

Abolish Grand-Cross

Post-Rounding Good as long as it doesn't go in circles

Evergeen Valley '22: 2 x TOC Qual (Junior & Senior Year), 1 x Nats & States Qual (both my Junior Year)

Case

- Speed: Im good with Speed, I went pretty fast when I was debating, just make sure you're sending a speech doc if you are going (250 WPM+). Speed shouldn't sacrifice clear warranting, but if you can do both, by all means, go for it.

- Weighing: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE set up weighing in summary or 2nd rebuttal if possible. Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative, "We affect 30 thousand lives" is not weighing, it's your impact, do weighing, not an extension of your impact. I default (SOL) strength of link if there is no weighing done in the round. GOOD Pre-Reqs, Link-ins, Short Circuits are Fire.

- Cross: I don't flow cross, but if someone conceded something in cross, bring it up during your speech and mention it.

- Prefs/Other: Defense is sticky. If they don't frontline something in rebuttal, and its dropped in summary, you can bring it up in Final Focus. HOWEVER, as a norm you SHOULD EXTEND IN SUMMARY. I might like you more and be more likely to vote for you :). MAKE SURE YOU COLLAPSE IN SUMMARY. It is much better to go for 1 argument with a lot of good weighing vs. 2 with none.

Theory

- TLDR; Theory cool, as long as there is actual abuse in the round and is well explained. I don't evaluate Friv T, and don't say anything problematic. Default reasonability, RVI's Good, and theory a priori; extend the under view.

- Don't read theory against a team that doesn't know how to respond unless: its at a round robin or it's past the bid level at a tourney (quarters at an Octas Gold), in which case the team should already know how to respond.

- UNLESS they actually do something abusive during round, no Paraphrase, Disclosure, Speed or Friv T against a team that doesn't know how to respond. If you must run it, then explain it well and put it in paragraph form (no jargon) so at least the other team knows how to respond. Just know I'm less inclined to buy it.

- If your reading against a team that know's how to respond: Go Crazy! I'll evaluate Meta-theory, make sure you weigh in-between the shells and LAYER the debate. Layering in tech rounds is super important, and if you can do it properly you'll get high speaks.

- If I am on a panel make sure the other judges can evaluate T, that is my condition if you're running it, plus I dont wanna have a bunch of squirrel decisions on my records because other judges cant evaluate off-case args during round :((.

K's

- Prefer Util debate. I've only ever read a K during round once and it was securitization. I know the very basics so run at your own risk. That being said, if its your topic strat I won't penalize you for it.

- Make sure you explain your warrants extra clearly against teams that aren't familiar with literature. Again, no jargon and go slow. Im familiar with different epistemological/deontological forms of weighing so you can read them, but again EXPLAIN it well.

Tricks

- Just don't. If I have to hear or evaluate another Kanye West off-case argument I am going to turn my flow into a paper-airplane and throw it at you. If you get this reference Good For You.

- So yeah, no tricks and if you do run them your getting dropped and lowest possible speaks. The other team will get the W and 30 speaks.

Speaks

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks 28-30, unless you say or do something problematic, or are just outright rude and abusive. I don't give speaks off "pReSeNtAtIoN", its based off how well you do in the round.

27 - you did garbage.

28 - your average.

29 - you probably should break.

30 - you should make it far in elims.

- I am not one to pick styles, if you want to be Slow and Strategic or if you want to be Fast and Assertive, do what you know. Just make sure you do it well.

LD/Policy/Parli/Etc

- TLDR; Condo Chill, Tricks Bad, Case Cool, Theory Cool, K's ehh (if there not basic like Securitization, prolly refrain). Layering most important if your not running Case args, of if your running Case and Off-Case args.

- Im a PF dude, so I have the most experience in evaluating Case Args. That being said, run your crazy args, Meta-Theory, your 5-Off whatever. As a judge it's my job to adapt to you, but i'm more likely to make a mistake on args I'm not familiar with, so run at your own risk.

Secret Section

- If you say "Judge you can go and get coffee because this round is literally over", i'll give you plus 0.5 speaks each time (+1 at Max).

- If you say the secret code word - 'Disinterperation' in your off time road map i'll give you +1 speaks.

** If you have any questions, ask me before the round **

Isabella LoCicero Hire

Pranay Macherla Hire

Maria Perez Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 2:54 AM EDT

Hellooo! I am an ex a public forum debate and am currently in med school! I have quite a bit of debate experience (debated for 4 years) and now I coach PF.

I would really appreciate that you guys use technical debate terms/jargon throughout the round. I'll try to include as many details as possible but if you have any other questions feel free to ask. Remember the most important thing is that you try your best and have fun!!

- I can keep up with a pretty fast pace just make sure its understandable, but slow down when reading your impacts or numbers so I can get them all down.

- In your rebuttal I really would prefer a line by line approach but if you don't it wont hurt you.

- For summary please make sure to use impact calculus and explain to me why they apply to each individual issue. Make sure you really summarize for me what happened in the round but please don't just make it another rebuttal that'll make your speaks lower...

- On that same note do not mention any arguments in final focus that you didn't extend through summary. If I hear something not mentioned in summary in final focus, i'll just stop flowing.

- In final focus, same thing as summary don't just refute everything again. This your chance to really grab my attention and tell me why your'e winning. Make it priority to get all the voting issues across. Flat out tell me what they are and how you won them.

- On evidence, I really don't care if you ask for it but if you ask for a new piece every 5 secs i'll probably get annoyed and lower your speaks. With that being said, if you debate over a card for a while i'll ask for it at the end and use that for my decision.

- I will ALWAYS keep time, but do as well try your best to NOT leave more than or go over 3 seconds. In cx, if you go over time just finish your sentence (briefly) don't waste time by asking me.

- I love a fiery cx but if you're rude you'll lose speakers, and if you're just plain disrespectful ( racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc.) you're losing the round.

- If you make me laugh, bring me coffee, or reference Grey's Anatomy your speaker points will be boosted:)

Goodluck!

Nikhil Reddy Hire

Dr. Nicky Smith Athenian School

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.com if you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

Arjun Surya Hire

Anish Thalamati Hire None

Zachary Thomas Hire

Last changed on Thu February 17, 2022 at 4:55 PM CDT

Tempus Debate

College: Harvard Community College '27

By the transitive property, I have over 20 Gold PF Bids.

I debated for Vestavia Hills High School for 2 years and then I moved so now I mainly coach teams. I mainly competed on nat circ so I am able to adapt to any style you would like.

Im completely tech and tabula rasa , so I judge rounds off the flow. Ive seen rounds where I could have technically voted off a leaf falling off a plant has a better link in to extinction than nuke war so take that as you want ig. Debate is a game. Tbh, debate lay or hard tech in front of me idgaf!

Main Reason for debate: Have Fun. Learn how to become better from your losses.

If you give me some fun phrases during the round such as "they dropped this contention so hard I might have even heard a thud." or "This gives us the cleanest access to our impact. It's so clean it's squeaky!" I will give you an extra speak. Im a cool judge, don't make this a boring round.

-----

Pref Chain

(1 being pref me and 5 being strike me)

Command+ F Progressive and you'll get there if that is what you want to know about btw

Trad Deb8: 1

Speed (250 wpm w/o doc anything above, j send a doc idgaf): 1

DA: 1

FW: 1

Theory/Topicality: 2

Kritique (Idpol, Word PIK, Performance): 2

Kiritique (advanced/high theory; Baudy, Delueze, Marx etc - ill try my best): 3-4

Counter Plan: 3-4

Phil: 5

LARP: 2-3

Tricks: 5 - I dare you lmao

Spikes: 5

-----

TL;DR

- PF paradigm is at the beginning, LD is at the bottom

- 100% tab and tech --> AL circuit, just treat me as the most tech judge.

- Im cool with speed. Especially cuz its all online, id like that you send me a speech doc j for AC/NC & AR/NR. If your rebuttal isn't on a doc, that's fine.

- Go crazy with args. Ive run super crazy cases before so go for it if you want, just make sure you know your own case. Run death good if u want idgaf. Btw Thicc Nicc Bostrom 4Life :)

- For any progressive arguments you want to run, all I ask for when you run prog args is that you send me a speech doc for it so I can get it all down. Keep ur own time. For more details, j look at the prog arg section.

- I understand the need for calling cards, i do it, just don't take more than 2 minutes to pull up a card. Everything you say should have the cut card with it. Do not misconstrue ev. L20, no exceptions.

- Second rebuttal must frontline all offensive/defensive responses made on your case.

- Defense is not sticky, so you must extend anything you want in FF in summary.

-TKOs are a thing and im willing to allow it but i have never judged a round where there is no way to go and find a ballot. So be careful when calling out a TKO before like 2nd summary or final. If u mess up, its gg, u lost bud.

-----

***Most Online Tournaments***

Yes Add me to the chain zthomas8491@gmail.com

Because this tournament is online, please send me speech docs to my email (zthomas8491@gmail.com). My internet can be spotty at some times so I recommend to not talk to fast during summary or final focus because I might miss it, unless you use a speech doc for summary and final focus for some reason. Also, for speech docs, please have cut cards on it, NO PARAPHRASING PLEASE --> I will doc speaks if there is any miscut evidence! If you have another case that isn't paraphrased, please read it instead. Paraphrasing in PF has become a major ethics issue so try to have normal cut cards instead pls, ty.

-----

***Tempus Debate LD Camp Tournament***

Ik im PF chair but i have experience in LD. LAWs topic was fun so run whatever you want tbh. Im fine with it. Im p chill. If you do plan on spreading for some reason: 1. you need to annunciate and 2. don't be abusive to your opponent. Speaks will be chill dw. You prob won't know too much of what i have put in teh LD section so i wouldn't worry about it. Just use what you have learned and apply it. This is a learning experience for you!

-----

Paradigm

Novice PF:

If you are just starting out...these are 2 really good resources to learn the basics of PF

https://pfforward.weebly.com/

https://www.learnpublicforum.com/

Couple notes just for novices...do these 4 things and do them correctly and I will definitely give you good speaks and you might even win.

1--> Speak Clearly (MEGA IMPORTANT) if you don't speak clearly, then I have no idea what to flow on paper and you will prob take the L :(

2 --> Weigh weigh weigh (SUPER IMPORTANT) look a little bit lower in my paradigm nad you'll find the weighing section

3 --> Collapse (PRETTY IMPORTANT) as a novice that was in your shoes, i know you want to go for every argument but it really is that good of a strat, instead go for your strongest argument and really flesh it out on the flow.

4--> Frontline & Extend (VERY IMPORTANT) if you don't extend arguments on the flow, I will have no idea what you are going for and you will probably sadly take the L :(

-----

Other notes for Novices...

I will not allow novices to run any progressive arguments because most novices I have judged, they all said they new what they were doing but then completely failed in debating the argument.

If you have any questions after round, ask them but don't be too aggressive please, so no post-rounding my decision.

-----

Varsity PF:

Favorite Debate:

A good substance debate buuutttt, I'll evaluate theory. If you want to run frivolous theory, go for it. If you can prove to me that Ghandi said, "If freedom don't ring, the choppa gonna sing" instead of MLK, i'll buy it. I ask that you confirm with your opponents if they are OK for you to run theory. If I think you are running theory on a team that doesn't know how to respond to it or have never experienced a progressive round, PLEASE do not run it otherwise I WILL DOCK SPEAKS and possilbly DROP YOU for setting bad norms in the debate space. You have to keep it fair otherwise people are not going to be happy. I'd recommend you run a substance debate more though because that will lead to a way better ballot as I understand a regular debate more. I debate this topic in a lot of tournaments so I understand it pretty well so it would be better if you do run a regular substance debate. And for the love of god, please don't run disclosure...it is so dumb. Good Luck :))

-----

tech>truth:

Arguments need to be well warranted: tell me why the link/internal link/impact matters. I believe that there is a great value to flow-centric, line-by-line debating. Though I don't claim to have the best flow in the country, I believe many debates can be simplified and made clearer by emphasizing the basics of lining arguments up and answering them accordingly. Not only will teams have a better chance to win my ballot by attempting some semblance of organization, but I believe the overall clash of argumentation that would result from this focus could yield more in depth scholarship and understanding of the topic being discussed. Debaters should clearly flag pieces of evidence they want evaluated after the debate. Failure to do so will more than likely result in me evaluating the round sans calling for cards.

-----

Clarity>speed:

I would put myself at a 7/10 for speed, so...DO NOT SPREAD. Max = 275 wpm. I do sometimes speak like 350 wpm but its pretty stupid so don't do it. Just because I debate doesn't mean I want people spreading like crazy. If you want to spread, you should try out policy debate, it'll be a good experience for you. If you truly feel the urge to spread, share a speech doc with me (zthomas8491@gmail.com). I believe that spreading is useless because it just shows that you want to get a bunch of ink on the paper but you will probably be dropping half of the stuff so why don't you tell me 3 or 4 really good warranted analysis responses instead of reading 8 to 15 responses that have the crappiest warrant and a horrible analysis. I'm ok with speed as long as it is clear, if not, I will say clear to tell you that I am unable to understand. If I still can't understand your speech, I will not flow it and I might dock a speak or 2.

-----

Warranting:

Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what the evidence says. I like critical thinking. Smart, well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. If you are winning the warrant debate, you are probably winning the round for me.

-----

WEIGH:

The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged, but with 3 min summaries I am less lenient. Also on weighing, I'm stealing a quote from Brian Zhu's paradigm: "I think of weighing in layers, beginning with probability. You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc." In other words: I tell you to weigh, u don't, u L :)

If you *meta-weigh properly* i will give you a 30 even if you didn't match up with the requirements for a 30.

-----

Off-time Roadmap/Signpost:

Right before you start the speech, give me an off-time roadmap BUT DON'T SAY THE PHRASE "OFF TIME ROADMAP", I'll take 1 speak away if you do. Even though you give me an offtime roadmap --> PLEASE tell me where you are on the flow (signpost). If I look confused, then it probably means that I don't know where you are and it makes it much harder for me to properly flow the round

-----

Time:

You guys are BIG KIDZ so KEEP YOUR OWN TIME

-----

Flex-Prep:

Im fine with it, i think it can be useful sometimes but don't abuse it pls.

-----

Cross:

Don't be a jerk but don't be a wimp. I like cross to get tense, but not to where someone is about to cry because you are being an overly dominant bully. Remember, cross-fire is for asking clarification questions and trying to get good information from the other teams. I don't flow cross, so if you think something important came up in cross and it has an impact on the round, bring it up. Don't bring up some random argument from cross if it is just a small argument compared to the ones where there can be some good clash.

-----

Frontline

IF YOU DON'T FRONTLINE, YOU BASICALLY SCREW YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING, IF BOTH TEAMS DON'T FRONTLINE, THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT ROUND TO JUDGE AND TO WATCH.

--> 2nd rebuttal must respond to the 1st rebuttal --> if you drop the points made in 1st rebuttal, thats a rip for you, you have just given up all defense on your case and they have shredded your case apart

--> 1st summary must respond to the 2nd rebuttal > if you drop the points made in 2nd rebuttal, rip to you, you have just screwed your chance of winning.

NO NEW ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN 2ND SUMMARY OR FINAL FOCUS!! I give a very small amount of leniency for the 1st summary as they do have to frontline the 2nd Rebuttal but, you should definitely collapse in summary so it makes it easier for you to properly warrant your responcss and make arguments that are for big brains. (a frontline is not a "new argument/evidence btw in case you didn't know that).

-----

Collapse:

Collapsing is definitely based on how the round goes but I recommend that you do it so you can pave the way for a better ballot. Unless you are completely destroying the team, you should collapse. I don't care tbh, but collapsing makes the round much cleaner and more smooth and less things all over the place that I have to eval.

-----

Extensions:

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

If you don't really get this by now you're probably gonna lose the round.

-----

Offense>weighing>defense

Anything that you want in the FF must be in the summary

I will not flow any new analysis or evidence in FF

-----

Evidence

these are OK cut cardz //// This a godly cut card( Thank you Christian Vasquez for the OK cut cards and thank you to the GRIDIRON CHOPPA....COLE STACEY for the godly cut cardz).

If the card is miscut or cannot be found within a decent amount of time (2min) it will be dropped from my flow. In the off chance you paraphrase cards (pls don't but if it is ur only option), it should not be misconstrued and the actual card should still be cut. You MUST have the cut card.

-----

Overviews

There are three types of overviews in my mind.

1) New offense --> --> --> --> I do not react well to these and find them extremely abusive, but I will flow them. However, if this new contention comes out in second rebuttal the other team can just tell me it's abusive / to cross it off the flow and I will. If I cross it off, it was a waste of your time and mine.

2) An overall response to their case. --> --> --> --> GREAT IDEA.

3) Weighing overviews. --> --> --> --> AMAZING IDEA

Weighing>>>>>>>>>Overall Response>>>>>>>>>>>New Offense, ie super offensive DA in 2nd rebuttal

-----

---

+Progressive Arguments+ --> *Mainly for PF but can be applied to LD also*

---

*I will tell you if i don't want you running Prog args in a round dependent on how i feel abt it...so tell me and your opponenets if you are running a prog arg and i will let you know if it is a green light for it (the only time you are exempt from it is if the opposing team paraphrased for example but couldn't give any cards for you, i would allow paraphrase theory to be run)*

*If you are a novice and you get theory run on you, yes, i will give the other team low speaks but j saying "im. a novice..you can't run theory on me" does not count for me. J make a novice theory shell saying why running theory on novices is bad and ill prob eval it (only if it is actually decent and makes sense) and ill j go to the substance debate.*

-----

BQ:

Ima be straight, math = dumb

I cut a card abt it, that's how strong i feel abt math lmao.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Peo4ZpfiklAuNsyTHpM7fVzqt9K4cbO8TT9HKPgqrkM/edit?usp=sharing

-----

Fiat:

- If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through Congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

-----

Framework:

- I default to Cost Benefit Analysis, otherwise known as the Analysis of Benefits and Costs. But, I am fine with framework debates, they make the round more organized because it kind of forces you to properly flesh out certain arguments in order to best access the framework.

- When reading a framework that has to do with structurally oppressed people (especially with the Septober '20 topic) don't make a framework that can basically be turned against you, like PLEASE GIVE A WARRANT on why these marginalized people should be "solved" and why they come first before others. Basically, don't read a framework that can be contested with util.

- Fairness is not necessarily an impact; it certainly may implicate the education that the aff produces, but calling fairness "procedural" doesn't bestow upon it some mystical external impact without additional explanation (i.e. without an actual impact attached to that). Fairness is an abstract value. Like most values, it is difficult to explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven. It's hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" It is pretty easy to demonstate why you should presume in favor of fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity (for example, teams expect that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothes). But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

- If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than most attempts to articulate one for fairness/skills/deliberation, but they're not unassailable: "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would) and "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

-----

T/Theory:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

- Paraphrasing bad, disclosure is ok, misgendering bad, no tw bad. I won't hack for anything, but this is my general viewpoint of these issues.

- No RVIs. --> "RVIs are dumb, you don't get to win for proving you are ethical. I suppose I can see myself voting for an RVI if someone horrifically mishandles it, but if theres warranted clash on the issue of RVIs, I generally think no-RVIs." - Enebo

- I am down for some frivolous theory.

- I like theory shells to be in standard form (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters) no paragraph form.

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

- I won't necessarily default to competing interps, reasonability, or other frameworks, etc. There are general parts of T (interp, violation, standards-voters, impacts, etc). If you go for T, then give me thorough reasons to vote for T. On aff, I think it is strategic that you can make theory or pre-fiat arguments that precede Topicality.

- For any T argument, if you want my ballot on it, you need to win the interpretation/violation, give a good explanation of the impacts (voters), and win some standards which prove your interpretation solves the impacts. This stuff can get developed in the block, but just extending a shell isn't going to do it.

- Theoretical reasons to prefer/reject an ethical theory are generally pretty terrible arguments. This includes: Must Concede FW, May Not Concede FW, Util is Unfair, Only Util is Fair, etc. You should prove that you're right, not that it's educational to pretend that you are. Many 'role of the ballot' arguments are just theoretically justified frameworks by another name, and I feel similarly about these. I also do not assume by default that your warrant comes logically prior to your opponent's because you referenced "education" or "ground"; the falsity of a standard seems at least as salient a reason not to require debaters to use it.

- Competing interpretations means that I evaluate theory through an offense-defense paradigm; it does not require a counter-interpretation. A corollary is that I literally do not understand how a difference between potential and articulated abuse would function. I am, of course, willing to listen to arguments which dispute either of those claims, but they’re an uphill battle.

- I will not vote for reasonability absent an explicit bright line. I prefer standards-level strength of link weighing (who has a better internal link to fairness or education) over generic fairness vs education debates, although the latter tends to be more strategic. Absent weighing, I don’t have a default preference between fairness and education. I default to dropping the argument, not the debater, on all theory questions except status theory (conditionality).

-----

Disads:

- Don't read in 2nd rebuttal

- If u do read it, u must do weighing with it, or provide some sort of analysis that gives me a comparison between ur arg and theirs.

- DO NOT, run it as a 10th contention at the bottom of ur case j for 2nd speaking team to have to cover that too. DA's that act as overviews are the best.

- I like the specific DA debate, if you decide to go for DA(s). This means that when you win the DA, you should also be winning a DA-case comparison (for example: DA outweighs case, DA turns case, etc.).

- "Zero risk" is certainly possible but often unlikely. What I mean by this is that if the neg says "The plan leads to an increase in hair loss, and warming causes extinction" and the aff says "No link--no warranted reason the aff leads to hair loss and no internal link between hair loss and warming," I'm not going to decide that since the aff only made defensive arguments that there's "only a risk" of the DA occurring. Smart defensive arguments (including and sometimes especially analytics) can take out entire disads and advantages, but if they're not terminal I am going to be more susceptible to "only a risk" logic.

-----

Kritiks:

- UPDATE (4/2021):

- I have started to judge, debate, and spec more rounds with Ks now. I think that PF definitely has room for K arguments to be read.

- I would say I'm comfortable to eval Ks, with that being said, I'm most sympathetic to K's that are using the round to make structural change within the debate community, ie. Word PIKs, Idpol, Performance type stuff. And those are the ones I'm most comfortable with. That doesn't mean u can't run Marxism or Delueze, Baudy etc, j dumb it down for me lol. I'm p chill when it comes to this stuff, especially since Ks are slowly moving into PF.

- No Identity Ks if you have no relation to that group...ill doc ur speaks like hell

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

- The "aff didn't do enough" K isn't doing much for me. If this is your best option, I'd recommend T instead. Perms solve it and it's not offense.

- K debaters that can't debate the case enough to prove that the aff doesn't simply reduce military presence but somehow reinforces it or some other bad process in trying to do so are having a really hard time winning with me. You need links. "You touched the gov't" isn't getting the job done. If this is your best strat, I am not the judge for you.

- Negative state action undermines a lot of "we shouldn't have to debate as the gov't" args, absent more detailed elaboration by the aff team reading a non- topical or non-plan aff. I can personally entertain some reasons why this arg might still be true, but teams have yet to advance args that are not facile extensions of the standard "gov't bad" arg in explaining this for me. "Decrease military" and "gov't bad" are in the same direction on face. You'll need to do more to prove that they are not.

-----

K Affs

- K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

- K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively. This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

- K BECOMING AFF: Truth is bad. These affs include Postmodernism, Intersectionality, & Black Optimism. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

-----

CPs

- I have hit a CP once, and it was when i did an LD tourney, so take that as you want, im not a huge fan of them so run them at a ur own risk.

- Generic CP debates aren’t too interesting, but a well coupled counter plan and net benefit can be cool. Don’t assume I’ll kick the CP for you and assume that it’s conditional unless specified. Winning a high risk of a DA and a risk of the counterplan solving better than the aff makes for an easy neg ballot. For the aff team, point out solvency deficits, shady theory points, put offense on the CP, and make warranted permutations (more than 3 is probably not legit).

-----

Presumption:

In the terrible case that the whole round become a wash (i would most likely give low speaks if this happens btw) i presume 1st speaking team.

-----

LD:

I dabbled in LD throught my 2nd year of debating. Im p chill with it ngl.

Some things for LD...

CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

I will reference the doc when flowing, but I pay attention to what you're saying (won't miss any extemped args in the 1AC/1NC, and won't flow stuff that's in the doc but that you didn't read. Just lmk if u are extemping args).

Clarity > speed. You can go faster/be less clear for args that you've sent in the doc that I have a visual reference for. If you're not flashing your analytics don't blaze through them. Lowering speaks for entirely pre-written/scripted rebuttal

Sequencing, preclusion, weighing, and clearly delineated interactions are the keys to resolvability; I want my RFD to be repeating back arguments you've made. Most frustrating debates are when both sides are extending things that take out the other side's route to the ballot without weighing/interacting the two args that indict each other. Absent clear weighing I default to strength of link (i.e. two conceded fairness standards indict each other but some education standard is conceded, so I vote on the education standard).

Helpful to extend arguments by content (“extend permissibility affirms” vs. “extend spike 3 sub-point B”), and I have a very low threshold for extensions if an arg is conceded ("extend the framework" is sufficient if the framework is straight dropped, and don't even bother extending paradigm issues if its a theory debate and you both agree), but its still up to you to implicate dropped args strategically and explain what it takes out/why the drop is relevant

Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

Be nice to novices and traditional debaters, or else your speaks will suffer.

I don’t like it when the debaters are just jerks to each other in CX.

I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

My default assumption is nothing is important until an argument is made for why it is. This means if you read theory without drop the debater or arguments without framing mechanisms, I’ll just ignore them. This in particular applies to independent voters and perf con arguments because they don’t justify why they supersede other substantive issues and are drop the debater. The only things that I will default are consequentialism, strength of link in the absence of weighing, procedurals first, and epistemic confidence.

-----

Speaks:

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Make me laugh and you’ll get higher speaks

30 - YOU ARE A COLE STACEY LEVEL DEBATER WITH ICONIC RISHI LINGALA VIBES AND HIS AMAZING SKILLS AT CARROLTON R1 (uncommon for me to give out) Belongs in late outrounds, flawless speaking ability and strategy [Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lmfao.] IF you are a RESIDENT then you will get auto 30. IF you know the ways of a THAD, auto 30 if u are wrong, auto L25

29.5 - Chad level ("bruh" - Cole Stacey) Mid/late outrounds, excellent speaking ability and strategy

29 - lad level ("ok bud" - Christian Rhoades) Should break, really good speaker, makes smart decisions

28.5 - Could break, could improve in EITHER speaking ability OR decision making, but excellent in 1 category

28 - Above average, could break, still a good debater, but has room for improvement in speaking and decision making

27.5 - Average, Either a good speaker and flawed decision maker, or a poor speaker and good decision maker

27 - Slightly below average, definitely has plenty of room for improvement as a debater

26.5 - Either struggling to speak during the round OR doesn't seem to understand their argument OR ignored my paradigm

26 - Struggling to speak during the round AND doesn't seem to understand their argument AND ignored my paradigm

25 - Offensive to others during the round

0-24: im sorry mate but i kinda failed at everything and did some bad stuff, oop

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS...*unless i am told not to by the tournament directors or if a team does not want me to disclose. *

-----

Credit to Sam Goldstone for this...

"A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH"

"ok bud" - Christian Rhoades

Daniel Xie Hire

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 10:31 AM PDT

Flow judge

4 years PF at Leland

he/him

PF:

-Put me on the email chain: dxie18@gmail.com

-Frontline in second rebuttal

-Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh comparatively -- don't just say your impact is important, show why it's more important than your opponent's

-Give warrants. Don't just read statistics with no reasoning or warranting.

-Terminal defense > Weighing. make sure you at least access your impact in some way before weighing it

-Metaweigh, otherwise I'll probably just default to prereq/short circuit > link-in > everything else or evaluate based on mitigatory defense/whatever feels intuitive

-I don't like DAs that don't interact with the case at all but I'll evaluate them reluctantly

-Misconstrued evidence won't be evaluated and you'll probably lose speaks

-I really really prefer that you don't spread. I don't like flowing off a doc. I will evaluate spreading if you give me a doc but I'd rather not have to.

-Please time yourself.

-Tech > Truth. I'll vote on anything but keep in mind that crazy arguments that don't make a lot of sense are a lot easier for your opponents to respond to

-Don't be problematic

-I don't flow cross and won't vote on it. If something important happens in cross, it must be mentioned in speech for it to be on my flow.

-I don't like calling for cards. I will try to avoid calling for cards. MAKE MY JOB EASY, do the indicting and the evidence comparison in your speech. I will always try to evaluate evidence clashes solely based on what is said in the round, me calling for evidence should be the last last resort if I can't break a clash.

-If you want to concede defense to kick out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read, you should also explain why the defense takes out the turn

Progressive Arguments

-Theory and Ks: I'm not too familiar with them, especially Ks, but you can run them (sorry if I make the wrong decision though). I don't like friv theory but I won't hack against it

-No CPs/Tricks

Not PF:

-frontline in the speech after responses are made

-warrants please

Login to Tabroom

The CTD Septober Public Forum Warmup

2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges