Debated pf for two years and did ld for two years

add me to the email chain: rishi.ajmera11@gmail.com

PF:

go whatever speed u want, I'm fine with it if you spread just send a doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline everything or the other team gains offense that can't be touched on in second summary.

I will call for cards at the end of a round if they matter for my decision.

Don't post-round, if you do I will dock your speaks significantly.

if you have any questions, ask me before round

LD Bell '22. TAMU '26. PF, a little LD. By the transitive property I had 14 PF Gold Bids, 8 LD Bids. In reality I had none

Put me on the email chain - cdcannon2004@gmail.com

First Year Out, barely competed senior year but was still active, probably mildly rusty

As far as my own personal skill when I competed I would say I was the definition of mid if that helps you understand me better

Text (817)-999-1499 with anything stupid for +.2 speaks (must show a screenshot) - show me BEFORE round

Idc what you call me judge is chill or just call me Chris unless that makes you feel weird

UPDATE FOR STANFORD

- I have not been involved in debate for the last like year, and I know actually nothing about the current topic. Sorry y'all, I made this paradigm senior year when I still competed, so I would still take it at face value but add like 15-25% more lay to what you think you should do based on reading this paradigm.

TLDR - Do whatever you want just don't be a terrible person.

Important Stuff

- First and foremost I want rounds to be chill. Debate is stressful enough as it is so I don't want y'all to feel nervous bc of the judge or whatever. If you've got tech problems, while unideal, I'm not gonna get mad or nuke your speaks over smth you can't control. If you wanna email me for basically any reason, whether to ask abt how to improve from the round before (although I wasn't some goated competitor but I'll give my best advice) or just talk abt something hmu.

- Tab/Flow/Tech/Whatever people put here, I'll vote on anything as long as it isn't any of the -ist or -isms.

- I agree a lot with Alec Boulton's paradigm so if you know who that is or want to go look at his def do that. Basically go run whatever you want, run what you think other judges don't want you to run or are bad at evaluating (not saying I can evaluate everything but yk what I mean). Debate is a game.

- Since I am no longer competing, I am likely not very informed on the topic or super understanding of the meta, so clear uniqueness will go a long way of "hey here is what's actually going on".

- Extensions don't need the card name, they need a warrant. Idk if you extend with or w/o the name as long as you give the warranting behind whatever you are extending

- Speed is chill just send a doc if you're going over like 225 WPM (I write slow and I'm also dumb so I take a bit)

- Finding cards shouldn't take that long, idk why you would have them in 6 different places

- I think paraphrasing is not ideal and disclosure is good (yes even if you are a small school). Coming from a single entry school w/o a coach disclosure def doesn't hurt you bc whoever you're hitting is gonna have your flow anyways. I won't hack for either of these shells though if you run them. Its probably easier to win disclosure in front of me than paraphrasing, but again I'll try to be as tab as possible (or just don't violate an interp crazy ik)

- Read trigger warnings on stuff that needs it. Since that's not a good brightline, if you are asking yourself if it needs one, it probably does.

- Postrounding is a good norm imho, so you can do it as much as you want as long as you aren't rude, if I have to move on fast because of time constraints feel free to email me and I can explain my rationale more.

- Also if you have questions abt like college or something lmk I'll help as best I can, I had a really good support structure so if you don't I can try and help :)

In round

- 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline 1st offense at least, I think frontlining all of it is strategic but I'm not gonna force it

- Weigh plz, clean frontlining + good comparative weighing = W

- If you say "we outweigh on scope" and that's it, in the wise words of Steven A. Smith, "we do not care", and it might not even make it on my flow.

- Probability weighing is fake, if you win the arg the probability is 100%. Probability weighing is at best mitigatory defense for stuff like extinction, and usually its infinitely stronger to just go for the link level. Feel free to use it as defense because I can be persuaded to vote on a 100 percent chance of smth small over a 1 percent chance of something large, all comes down to warranting.

- HOT TAKE, Offensive Overviews/DAs/ADVs or whatever you want to call them are chill in BOTH REBUTTALS. You've got 4 minutes either way, but also if you paraphrase a bunch of blippy DAs that are super uncontextualized my threshold for responses will be super low. I'd rather you read one contextualized DA and implicate it onto the Aff as an overarching offensive response.

- If you can do the above WELL, your speaks will 100 percent reflect it.

- Obviously this means I'm fine with any type of overview in rebuttals, just signpost it well and tell me where to flow it.

- FF is just for show, unless one of y'all really messes it up the round should be mostly over after summ

- If y'all want to skip GCX for 1 min of prep that's fine

- Time yourselves and prep, I don't want to honestly, hold yourselves accountable

- I'll disclose even if the tournament doesn't want me to they can fight me

- Again postrounding is chill

- TKO Rules apply, if you believe the other side has literally no path to the ballot, call TKO and its a double W30, if I believe they have any route, its an L20

- I'm 100 percent fine with prog in PF. No you don't have to ask your opponents if they are fine with theory if you are in a varsity pool. Small schools can learn theory with the amount of resources for it. I came from a small debate school with literally no coaching and did it, so can you. K's I think are a different story. In my humble opinion theory is much, much easier to both learn and respond to than Ks are. I have less experience with them but very much understand how they function (again I did some LD so I have run a few/hit a few Ks). If you are reading something that is clearly meant to bully a novice in a var pool or a small school or something I'll be upset. HOWEVER don't let that stop you from running identity Ks because I think it isn't my place to say whether or not you should run them since I am not the one experiencing the harm that the K addresses, even if it is against someone who doesn't really know how to respond to it. Explain your ROTB clearly and I should be fine with it. Personally identity Ks are significantly easier for me to grasp than something like Zizek, I do understand a little bit of Baudrillard. I am capable, but probably not the best judge to run a K on.

Speaks

- Hot take (maybe) speaks are dumb and bad and stupid, I'll be generous though.

- Good weighing = High speaks

- Also based on how you are in round. Be chill, get high speaks.

Evidence

- Paraphrasing is not great, even if you paraphrase you must have cut cards for what you are talking about. NSDA requires at least that rn (I think)

- If you paraphrase solely to read 25 blippy turns in 1st rebuttal I will be sad (take that as you will)

- If you show me that you read cut cards I'll bump speaks by +0.2 (remind me tho)

- If you disclose +0.2 speaks

- If your opps have bad ev ethics and you make it a voting issue and its legit I am def likely to vote on it even if it isn't a specific shell just like an IVI on very miscut ev (the number of times a larger school did this to me and I felt I couldn't address it since I didn't have a good shell made me sad)

If you have any questions ask me before round or email me bc I guarantee I'm forgetting to mention something

Those Prefsheet Things

Trad - 1

Theory - 2

Easy K (cap, security, stuff like that) - 2/3 (I didn't run them in PF but understand how they function)

Trix - 3 (I don't like these but these are also easy to understand conceptually so :/)

Identity Ks - 3/4 (I also understand how these function but keep in mind I did PF mostly so my exposure to identity Ks was minimal)

Not Easy K - 4/5/probably strike (I probably know the "most" about baudy but like if you yell at me @ 350 wpm to embrace the death drive idk what tf that means)

Judging Experience

Judged live debate for zero years and fewer then twenty ld rounds this season so far. These tournament rounds will be first ever.

Attitude toward typical LD practices

I have judged LD debate for ___ years. M. How many LD rounds have you judged this season? (select one)

Typical conversational speed of 4.

Rate of delivery does weigh heavily in my decision as I want to be able fully understand each debater argument.

Will vote against student for exceeding your preferred speed.

Rebuttals and Crystallization

Final rebuttals should include line-by-line.

Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow.

How the winner is decided?

I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals should be kept to a minimum.

Q1) How important is the criterion in making your decision?

It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Q2) Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

No

Hi, my name is Parker De Dekér (He/Him), I'm a Student at Columbia University in New York where I study Latin American & Caribbean Studies and Cognitive Science and I work as a Research Advisor at the Bahamian Mission to the UN and IDB. I'm also the Assistant Coach for Congress at Taipei American School, and do a lot of committee and organizational work throughout the Speech & Debate Community.

While in High School, I got some variety of exposure to any and every event that our community has to offer, so rest-assured I come from an experience background where I'm happy to see you run whatever you want, as long as it's respectful and has a place in the round.

Congressional Debate

Repetition & Refutation: The recurrence of similar ideas in the first two cycles of debate is okay; subsequently, I either want to hear new points that highlight the issues brought forward to focus on achieving a resolution or I want to be listening to you refute your opponent's points. I respond to engaging speeches with dynamic responses to specific arguments mentioned earlier in the round and points of note referenced by the speaker’s name; it demonstrates you are actively listening to others and formulating new material as the round progresses. A memorable speech that I can flow assists me when filling out my rankings upon completing the round.

Speaking: I am comfortable with spreading; however, this is a Congressional debate, and spreading is non-sensical when getting your point across, especially if you are trying to emphasize or embolden certain points. I prefer to see open, engaging dialogue over a flurry of nonsensical interjections. I enjoy speakers that show a genuine passion for what they are talking about.

As the round goes on and the material becomes more repetitive, I WILL flow less of what is presented. If you are debating in a later cycle and still want a place on my ballot, you need to fight for it, that comes by distinguishing yourself stylistically. Refute your opponents' arguments, weigh the round, and if you are one of the final speakers PLEASE CRYSTALIZE. I will give you higher speaker points if you attempt on crystal speech and do okay, rather than give a constructive one with no refutation and do great. In my opinion, crystallizing the round is a difficult task; if you do it well, I'll remember you!

Decorum: As a judge, I appreciate your ability to respect your PO, Parliamentarian, Competitors, and Judges with formal language and modest amounts of well-timed humor. It is your responsibility to ensure you monitor time signals and adhere to PO policies.

Equity and inclusion are integral points in how I judge a round. I expect to hear demonstrated efforts to make a round more inclusive for others through the usage of correct terminology, proper pronouns, etc. Explicit acts to infringe upon a person's identity, including, but not limited to, their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or other such disregard, will result in an immediate drop in ranking status.

Presiding: As an experienced Parliamentarian (and High School PO) I'm very familiar with the intricacies of presiding. If you are running against someone as the presiding officer, I hope you are decently experienced. If you are stepping up to preside, I will take that into account when filling out my rankings; however, if you say you are an experienced PO, list a whole bunch of tournaments you've presided at, and then still fail to provide efficient presiding, I'm going to consider that a bluff, and include comments about it in your RFD. Even if I'm not the parliamentarian, I will still be keeping track of precedence and recency and your employment of Roberts Rules of Order. I consider efficient, organized, and experienced POs equivalent to quality speakers and will rank my POs on the same level during the round. I appreciate a well-run chamber where all parties are held to the highest standard and will make a note of those who rise to the occasion.

Public Forum:

I will flow everything in the round, even Cross-Ex, so if your opponent asks a question in cross-ex and you don't carry that argument through the round, I'm going to believe that you either weren't paying attention in Cross or you are not responding to the question; however, if you are the one answering the question and your counter never appears later in the round, I'm also dropping it from the flow. I encourage you to run whatever you like; however, I enjoy progressive arguments in PF. Yes I know, a public forum is supposed to be very accessible, and I agree. Still, it should also be a learning opportunity, so responding to abuses of the debating environment (T-Shell), introducing frameworks (I wish I didn't have to mention this, but I do), moral imperatives and interpretations are all appreciated. That said, if you are trying to run a T-Shell in JV or Novice, I will be a little concerned; save this for varsity. In terms of speed, I've competed in almost every debating style, so I am very familiar and comfortable with spreading; however, I'm not a big fan of spreading in PF, so fast paces are okay, spreading to a point that puts your competitor and a disadvantage will be labeled as abusive, please don't do this.

What I Love to See: Impact calculus- it is the most important thing to me; please weigh & please tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be.

A few things I hate in rounds:

- Swearing, I wish it were obvious but you would be surprised. This lacks professionalism if it is not needed to make points. Same goes for using basic filler such as like, um, literally, err, but, stupid, etc. If you use these, your not going to get a 30 from me for your speaker points.

- "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, if you are sitting for more than 15 seconds without telling me that you are taking prep, having tech issues, etc, I'm going to start the prep clock.

- Experienced debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced.

-Straight Theory Arguments: Are done to death, and aren't making either debater better. If it wins, I'll still pick you up, but I would prefer to see educational rounds.

-Do not run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent, and then you have a case completely against your opponent. This demonstrates that you lied about the fairness argument; I'm dropping it.

-DEBATE SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUSIVE! The usage of any verbiage or dialogue that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, classist, or abusive will result in an immediate loss of the round, and a speaker score below 20, this is not tolerated while I am a judge.

Lincoln Douglas & Policy:

1. I will be flowing all of the debate, but I appreciate it when you slow down on the authors and taglines, even if you are spreading. I'm very comfortable with spreading, but I ask that you put me on the email chain parker.dedeker@gmail.com

2. Even in complex debates in LD and CX, I want to see the debate a clear storyline that properly compares the resolution to the context of the squo, and explains how arguments within the round interact with one another. I'm a huge lover of Phil. debate, but not framework debate. I don't want to make it to the 2AR and still be arguing about what the Value/VC is for the round. If there is no way for you to adopt the same value for the res then just provide a holistic approach to explaining how your args can suffice both values and criteria for the round.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I am often more invested when you approach the aff case with new and innovative arguments that still engage with the topic.

4. Please know what you’re talking about. The easiest way for you to lose a round is to look for an argument that is "irrefutable," "shiny" or non-topical because it sounds good and like an easy win, but then have no tangible way of continuing the argument without sole reliance on the card. When students are well-read/versed on the things that they are reading, and have an ability to care and genuinely understand them, I am easily engaged and feel better positions to vote for you. That being said, being well-read does equate to using complex jargon all the time. This is not really appealing to me, and can also come off as an unfair approach to the round, especially because not every team/school has the resource to equip them with these complexities. If your wording doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate, I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. Progressive Debate: So this has become a huge debate in recent years on the circuit, and coming from Wisconsin, I'm used to competitors being dropped for running prog, but surprisingly, I absolutely love progressive debate. I will vote for Theory, T debates, Kritik, plans, CPs, etc, but I do not believe that running a progressive approach is a necessarily substantive response to certain arguments. This being established, if you choose to run a Prog case, there are a few things you need to do: prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, and actual education lost for T debates. Establish why the resolution cannot be debated and why you have to run a CP/Plan (your DAs need to be crystal clear and need to be used to set up the case before you move into the CP in the 1NC) or provide me with genuine context about why the philosophy, theory, or kritik holds more validity to be debated over the topicality within the round. While I love prog debate, my caveat is--you need to know your audience. If you have a competitor who is in a position where they cannot respond to your arguments because of their complexity/lack of literature to disprove or position your competitor within the round where they cannot logistically win the round in your own opinion, then I cannot vote for the prog arguments, because it doesn't allow the debate to be educational.

All Events: If you ever need an explanation of your feedback, or want a more in-depth response, email me parker.dedeker@gmail.com I WILL NEVER leave you a blank ballot. If this happens, it is a mistake, please send me an email, and I'll see what I can do.

Best of luck to you in your rounds today and tomorrow. Your speaking will change lives, even if it is just one, I promise.

he/him; 4th yr pf @ oakton; add me to the email chain: d.kim.matthew@gmail.com

Read specific content warnings w/ anonymous opt-out forms--ex here

Traditional pf judge--tech > truth

Non-negotiables

- Collapse + weigh

- Debate is a game! Play to win.

- Read specific content warnings, w/ anonymous opt out forms instead of text, and ample response time. Ask beforehand if you're unsure what warrants one, always err on the side of caution

Please:

- Run whatever you want

- Tell a joke! Unless you arent funny

winning my ballot starts with comparative weighing. I vote for the team with the strongest link into the least mitigated impact.

- One good weighing mechanism adapted to the context of the round > many pre-typed, blippy ones

- Few good pieces of evidence > lots of sketchy pieces of evidence; Big brain analytics > generic responses from your blockfile

- If its not in summary it shouldn't be in final focus, that includes new weighing

- Cross is binding.

- I presume neg, then coinflip, but try to find any risk of offense before presumption

Prog

- no prog on newer debaters, no experience evaluating as a judge, no tricks

- Theory's fine in shell format, I default to competing interps + no rvis.

- K's are a no-go--run at your own risk, explain everything, don't use jargon, and really understand what you're saying instead of pulling them from random backfiles.

Prefs

- PF speed is fine, don't spread, even with docs and especially if you paraphrase.

- Flex prep is fine if your opps are cool w/ it.

- Postround

Speaks

- Extremely subjective so i'll prolly give everyone high speaks regardless of who won the round

- Being problematic scores you an L20

- Steal prep & I'll steal speaks

- +.5 for proper disclosure on the wiki; show me you did before the round

- +.1 for every joke; they don't count if I didn't catch em & they better be funny

Misc

- I'll disclose with feedback whenever possible

- Debate can be real stressful! Feel free to email or text on Messenger if I can make the round more accessible for you in any way

- A lot of this may have been pretty incoherent-- lmk before/after round with any questions. Anmol Malviya, Karin Liu, and William Fan also have similar takes on debate

Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a sophomore at Cornell University. I did Parli for a year and Public Forum for three years back in high school. Now, I've been doing college policy for two years :) I typically run trad policy stuff, but I'm used to hearing (and sometimes running) K's and T - so you can probably get away with running most things. Contact me for email chains at:

jzhou0303@gmail.com

--

For LD: I'm pretty new to coaching LD, but I do have my policy experience to supplement my understanding.

Good with evaluating traditional arguments all around, and I can definitely handle spreading. However, for online tournaments, I'd suggest speaking at a slightly slower speed so I can hear you and your mic doesn't cut out. My wifi is kinda spotty, so I may ask for speech docs. I understand what a value/value criterion are, but I've never actually competed with them; I'm still in the process of learning about them. I am used to progressive framing, though.

I'm fine with evaluating some of the wackier progressive arguments, like high theory or tricky T stuff, but keep in mind that I might not know what you're talking about!! I know the more basic stuff like Foucault's biopower and Baudrillard's simulation theory, but I will not know what you're saying if you start talking about Deleuze. There is a limit to these sorts of things!!!

--

For PF: I think paraphrasing cards is alright, but I will call for cards if necessary (or if you ask me to).

I'll understand spreading, but it's somewhat unadvisable because your mic might cut out. Please signpost in your speeches or else I won't be able to flow!!

No impacts, no dub >:) Trigger warnings are great! Please read them when you find them necessary. Please go hard and roast each other in cross (I won't flow it though lol).

--

I'll evaluate theory in PF, I'm alright with RVI's, and you should feel free to run trix (but keep in mind that I might get lost).

Hey, I'm Hassan and I debated for seven years

read whatever u want, just make sure you explain it well, I won't fill in gaps for you

you can curse if you want, just don’t be disrespectful or rude

any form of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism/phia will result in an L 25 and will be reported to tab

I don't care about speed, just be clear pls

always send docs, add hpalan330@gmail.com to the chain

Despite what many people think and say, I'd prefer it if you read theory in front of me. Probably the most fun rounds I've judged have been theory rounds. Read whatever shells you want, if you need some ideas check the Google Docs link at the bottom. I'd probably slow down just a little on the standards and paradigm issues, it'll make it easier for me to flow :)

That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a good substance round, they've just become less interesting for me the more I've judged. But feel free to read whatever you want.

Quick prefs:

Policy - 1

Theory - 2

K - 3

phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5/S

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FMlFid8Emdv5EV4xl1ZzJg_EzBmdmzbty4XqcKeinEI/edit?usp=sharing

Hey y'all, I'm Devon Pawlak and I'm debate captain of my team in Milwaukee, WI. Forewarning for anyone at the Discord Season Championship: While I have extensive debate experience, I have no experience if Public Forum whatsoever. The rest of this paradigm will be me explaining my preferences mostly as they relate to LD, my primary division.

I am here to learn more about Public Forum, as our team is switching to it this fall. That said, please do not over-adapt to this paradigm, as I want to see what your normal PF round might look like. You should know I am definitely not tabula rasa. Read the below carefully, as the guidelines I set are ones I believe best uphold fairness and equity within and outside of the round.

These guidelines are designed to create a traditional, safe, and fair experience for any debater that walks into the room. I recognize that circuit divisions, at least in policy and LD, are entirely different from this. If both debaters agree, I would be willing to suspend the below preferences and just judge a straight circuit round, but both debaters must clearly agree to and understand this.

Alright let's get into it.

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

Trad >>>> Good LARP >> Topical K > Justified T > High Phil > Bad LARP > Non-T/PoMo K > Unjustified T >>>>>>>> Tricks

General Philosophy

While I am familiar with and have probably run most nat circuit-level tactics, I have come to dislike them immensely. Thus, I have a few non-negotiables that you must comply with in order to win my ballot.

1. The role of the ballot is to vote for the better advocate. I cannot be persuaded to anything else. It's different from being the better debater. Abusing structural advantages inherent to debate to win rounds (time skews, etc) is terrible, and I can tell when you're doing it. Your critical RotBs are great and all, but are really self-serving, waste time on the actual debate, and are used to exclude topic-based ground. Which leads us to...

2. You must debate the topic. The closer you are to the topic, the more favorably I will look upon you. That means non-topical Ks are probably not great, LARP cases with weak link stories are slightly better, but it would really just be good if y'all stuck to the topic. It's what we're here for and anything else is exploiting your huge backfiles that your coach wrote and is the source of nearly all the woes of debate.

3. Do not spread in constructives. Very above-average pace is fine, but if I can't understand it or it's clear your opponent can't understand it, you will lose. Period. If I need to read the doc for anything but checking evidence, you're doing it wrong. Rebuttals are another story, since I get you have a lot to respond to, but please keep that to a minimum.

Anything below this point I can theoretically by convinced to change, but it will likely be an uphill battle. I will drop you for violating the above. For the below, I'll do my best to evaluate it objectively, but you'll take speaker point hits for sure and I still might find a way to drop you :)

Dropped arguments

Hot take: If your opponent drops and argument, that does not make it true. It simply means your opponent has lost the opportunity to contest it. I guess that makes me truth>tech. You still have to weigh and cleanly extend all dropped arguments. I'm torn on whether to let the opponent weigh, but not contest that evidence in later speeches.

Evidence

Quality matters. I should be able to tell why your evidence is credible and how it reached the conclusion it did just from the words you say. Please cut cards. Summaries aren't good enough, and are actually illegal. Blippy cards are hard to judge and are bad for debate: they just encourage shallow argumentation, and are the replacement for spreading except I think it's even worse. I'm also not a robot and need time to get your author tag along with the actual arg if you want me to flow it. Put me on the email chain (devonpawlak@gmail.com) but know if I have to use your speech doc that means it's a really close round and you probably did something wrong in explanation/extensions.

Frameworks

I have no idea how these work in PF. If I have you for LD for some reason, I'm sick of util/minimizing harm/whatever the newest rephrase of it is. Please run something more creative. I'll update this once I actually judge LD.

LARP

Not sure if this is a term in PF, but in LD it means pretending to be a policy debater. In my experience, this means long link chains with weak links that leads to human extinction. This is absolutely terrible debating for most topics (no, changing organ donation or the electoral college isn't going to kill everyone, I'm sorry). If there is actually an extinction-level impact in play, fine, but know that I have some rules I use when evaluating these types of rounds.

1. The probability of your DA being true starts at 0%, and it is your job to bring that probability up, not exclusively your opponent's to bring it down.

2. I multiply probabilities. That means if your link has a 30% chance of being true, and each of your three internal links is 80%, that's only a 15% chance your DA is true. On impacts, most extinction cards are powertagged. Hate to break it to you, but nuclear war doesn't cause extinction under any evidence you can possibly find. It just leads to most people dying. That means I can't take your low probability and multiply it times the infinite value of human civilization, because some people still survive and could theoretically repopulate the earth.

3. Econ DAs are horridly unconvincing. We just went through the worst recession in decades and there was no great power war, no mass starvation that upset the ecosystem. Anything on increased spending is also probably false given all the Biden plans that appear to have not collapsed the economy for now. Convince me otherwise, this point is relatively flexible.

4. Say 'pog' at least once in one of your speeches, and your entire team gets a .2 speaks boost. That's just to make sure you read the paradigm. If you find this cringe, make your partner do it.

Counterplans

It's banned in PF, so I'll update once I judge LD. No PICs, no agent CPs, no process CPs, you get the idea. My current status on condo is one conditional counterplan, but I can be persuaded.

Ks

Be topical, please. Non-T Ks usually critique the debate space in some way, but usually just recreate exactly the kinds of harms you're trying to prevent. PoMo Ks are not legit, they just create a higher barrier to entry in debate and increase access issues. On identity politics Ks, these are only permitted if they are an indictment of a debater's specific behaviour (or are directly topical). I am not trying to minimize the lived experiences of oppressed groups in society, or say that certain intellectual discussion ought to be silenced. However, non-topical IdPol Ks either A) ignore the fact that debate is a game where we all agree to certain rules (e.g., debating the resolution) or B) are run by debaters who have been forced by people who exploit debate as a game to run these sorts of positions, which are often the only way to win as a structurally disadvantaged debater. Unfortunately, these tactics also involve some element of exploiting debate structure and norms, which only encourages the original problems in the first place. The rest of this paradigm is designed to make it so that running these positions is not necessary to win the debate, and that any debater with prep on the topic comes in on even ground based on their effort in preparation and debating ability alone.

T

T is a useful tool to check abuse. That said, T debate is uneducational and a terrible norm. To balance these two interests, I have some non-negotiable defaults that should not be brought up in the round whatsoever as to maximize debate on the topic.

--Reasonability > Competing interps

--T goes on as high of a layer as I want it to, and it probably won't be the top unless you are responding to actual abuse. I default to considering it functionally as another contention and weigh pre-fiat harms to the debate space alongside post-fiat impacts.

--RVIs are not legit, instead I will run them for you with my ballot. I can tell when an argument is abusive. If you're concerned that this doesn't draw a brightline, good. That should discourage you from running remotely questionable T shells.

Tricks

Trix are for kids. If you run these, you go on timeout and your ballot will reflect this childish strategy.

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

P.S. Please post-round me. I am plenty willing to discuss my decision. Trad debaters, if you read anything above and don't know what it is, please also come to me after the round and ask your coach about it. You should know what these arguments are purely so that you can refute them. Also, if you're confused by the above, that's a good thing. Just do what you always do and you will probably make my day by not running any of the above.

Good luck! Thanks for reading my paradigm.

I am a relatively new judge to debate. Please be proactive and let me know what you need. Thank you in advance.

I have debated in Public Forum several times. However, I am new to judging. The sole basis of my decisions will be on whichever team convinces me. Avoid spreading.

Try to keep time yourselves, but I will be keeping time as well.

Please be respectful and do not talk over each other during the crossfires.

Remember this is a debate and have fun!

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

I decide based on whoever presents a more convincing argument.

Please be respectful to your opponents and when discussing any material relevant to the subject.

Allow your opponents to respond to questions in crossfire and don't talk over them.

Signposting is appreciated.

Please don't spread.