Tabroom.com

NYCUDL Summer Institute Tournament

2021 — Online, NY/US

PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Mouayad Abu Shanab Hire 8 rounds None

Aditya Anand Hire 8 rounds None

Phoebe Anthony Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:02 PM EDT

Hi! I'm Phoebe, and I'm a fourth-year PF debater at Newton South!

Debate should always be an inclusive and safe environment so if you ever feel uncomfortable/unsafe, feel free to reach out to me on Facebook @phoebemanthony or at phoebemanthony@gmail.com

FOR NOVICES: You guys are amazing! Remember to compare your case to your opponents and extend your arguments! Have funnn

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

Short version if you don't have enough time to read 300 words:

I'll evaluate the round as : framing--> weighing--> offense

-Please don't be mean to each other that will just make me sad

Lay [-------*----] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth

-You need to win your offense to win the weighing

--> If you make a claim that I don't think is true but warrant it well, then I'll buy it

-Basically write my rfd <3

-Make the round fun :)

-Substance>Progressive arguments

-Point out when things are dropped/conceded; it makes my life easier

-Please read trigger warnings!!

-Speaks: don't go lightning fast, BE RESPECTFUL

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

Nitpicky things:

Evidence:

-Don’t misconstrue evidence- make sure you have good evidence ethics

-I’ll only call cards if a team tells me to or if it's a little sus and is important to my decision

[when you extend evi, please extend the substance and not just the author name -- I value the content over just flowing the card name and date]

Cross:

-If something important happens, bring it up in later speeches

-Be respectful of your opponents (it's really easy to tell when you're being rude)

-Make me laugh

Rebuttal:

-Signpost/tell me where you are on the flow

-I don't appreciate card dumps, but then again, I can't stop you

-Well-warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants

-Second rebuttal should respond to the offense (turns, n/u, etc.)

Summary/ff:

- Summary + ff should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL, everything you extend in final should have been in summary)

-Collapse on one argument, PLEASE (quality over quantity!!!)

-WEIGHING is key; please don't forget :)

-Don’t forget to weigh turns; I can’t evaluate them otherwise

- Remember to meta-weigh (weigh the clashing weighing mechanisms)

Speaks:

-Speaks are kinda pointless (refer up^^)

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

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round!

Nathan Bauman Hire 8 rounds

Matthew Chen Hire 8 rounds

Julio Cordero NAVY 9 rounds

Alice Eva Doresca Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 23, 2023 at 10:56 AM CDT

Iowa City West High School '23 | she/her | alicedebate3014@gmail.com

About me: I’m currently a varsity PFer; this is my 4th year of debate.

NOVICES: take everything below with a grain of salt, debate the best you can, and have fun!

General:

"debate is a game" so tech>truth
I will always disclose unless told not to
Run what you want as long as it's warranted & has impacts
Time yourselves
Be nice
If you bring me bubble tea before the round, +0.5 speaks
Feel free to email or Instagram DM me if you have more questions after the round :)

Things I want to see:

Off-time roadmaps & signposting
Trigger warning if your arguments could be sensitive
Start frontlining in 2nd rebuttal
Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
Interaction (aka actually RESPOND to what your opponents say, don't flow through ink)
Collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win
Collapse STRATEGICALLY - aka don't go for the contention/argument that has 8 responses to it (unless you're prepared to/have time to frontline them all), when you could go for the one that has just 2

Things I DON'T want to see:

"Bruh homies out here having an asthma attack while reading cases." Don't spread. This is pf. If I miss something you say, that's on you. (If your opponents spread, feel free to run anti-spreading theory)
Don't read frivolous theory
DONT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGS IF YOU KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABT PROGRESSIVE PF

"asking" statements, instead of questions, during cross
New arguments in final focus or 2nd summary. This is abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond.
Bringing stuff up in final focus that wasn't brought up in summary (I won't vote on it)
DON'T just read card after card. You need to analyze in between and explain how they prove your point
Discrimination

I think speaks are very subjective, but here you go:

30: God-tier - I see you definitely breaking and making it into deep out rounds

29.5-29: Great - You're breaking for sure, might not make it far, but you're breaking

28.5-28: Average - Might be on the verge of breaking/will be in a bubble round

27.5-27: Comprehendible

<26: Either I can't understand you at all, or you were egregiously rude/discriminatory

link to one of my favorite pf rounds ever!

Meredith Feigel Hire 8 rounds None

Sydney Fritz Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 4, 2021 at 8:15 AM EDT

tldr; default to a genuinely flow-based judge. Updated recently for greater clarity.

I am good with tech rounds, but my threshold for speed is lower when judging, so don't spread on me. I need cases to be around 750 words for me to catch everything, but my response to speed somewhat improves as the round progresses. In other words, I need you to take it slow in constructive, but I can generally handle quicker back half rounds.

I vibe with all the standard stuff but am also susceptible to good rhetoric. I judge directly off the flow and am very conscious to not insert personal knowledge/evaluation.

No discrimination on the identity or circumstance of participants in round will be tolerated. Read trigger warnings with an opt-out if you at all think your case might warrant one. Please use gender neutral language in round if you don't know the pronouns of your opponents.

Grand cross is fun, and people need to stop being mean to it :(

Theory: I have voted on theory before and am open to evaluating it so long as it's targeting significant in-round abuse. I still follow theory on the flow, but I do believe that theory somewhat asks the judge to draw upon their own perception of what's happened in the round. I am 100% willing to stop the round and vote if there is any kind of behavior compromising the safety of participants. I will never, ever vote on disclosure theory.

Framework: Love it. Comfortable voting under basically any philosophical framework (deontology, util (I have a greater understanding of act utilitarianism rather than rule utilitarianism) rights, etc) as long as its won. I will give you a speaks boost if you run rights framework bc I've never head that in PF and want to see it. Also love fiat analysis.

Ks: If your K isn't accessible, I would ask you to offer an opt-out system. I am definitely more likely to vote on Ks that have tangible pre-fiat impacts. I am a decent evaluator of Ks if they're accessible enough for the literature to be understood. Please, please, please don't spread Ks.

Speaks: My speaks start at 28, and I definitely do hand out 30s. Just because you lose doesn't mean low speaks. If you're break quality, expect above 28s.

General Preferences: Fun rounds are the best rounds. Please extend cards when doing case extensions. Implicate your offensive responses.

Feel free to ask me if there's any questions post round.

Chiara Fuller ORANGE 9 rounds

Ryan Fung Hire 8 rounds

Janani Ganesh Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 14, 2022 at 5:51 AM EDT

hii everyone :)) first of all thanks sm for looking at my paradigm ily already

im on newton south's pf debate team

if u have any questions feel free to msg me on facebook messenger or email me @ janani.ganesh33@gmail.com

general stuff:

a. i am a flow judge. treat me as a flow judge (whatever that means in ur head)

b. i think weighing is like THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a round and i think a lot of people overlook it but pls weigh or else i will have to weigh for u and thats a bad day for all of us :(

c. if u r rude, homophobic, sexist, ableist, racist etc. in round either during speech or during cross x i will drop u and ur speaks

d. tech -------X-------------------------------------------------------- truth

okay now on to the specifics :D

speed/speech:

- u can speak fast but not like extremely fast, honestly would prefer if u go "lay" or speak conversational speed (prob better speaks than speaking fast and stumbling)

- if u have a speaking disability (ex. stuttering) lemme know before round or msg me but if you dont feel comfortable telling me im not gonna tank anyone speaks for stuttering [the same applies for any other like disablity, i want to make debate as inclusive as possible]

- if ur opponents tell u to slow down, pls slow down. there are many factors why ur opponents may ask u that

however if u r spreading, then send me and ur opponents a speech doc

content

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. DO VOTERS (ex. "there are 3 places ur voting for us in this round") i want to spend as little time after the round deciding who won (unless if there's clash ofc which is rly good) and i rly don't want to intervene

- weighing is so crucial. if there is not weighing i will default neg.

- i hate theory so pls try not to run it. try to treat me like a lay with theory. if ur rly pressed about running theory/k's ask ur opponents first if they are comfortable cus not everyone has the resources to learn about these kinds of things

- make sure to point out which arguments are conceded/dropped

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

- make sure ur not just asking clarifying questions but attacking their stance as well

- if both of yall run out of things to say just ask ur opponents how their day was

- dont be rude >:( or try and cut off ur opponents

fun things:

- if ur opponent cuts u off during cross, meow at them and ill give u +0.7 speaks

- if ur giving an offtime roadmap, do an interpretive dance and ill give u +0.5 speaks

last things

a. if u post-round (debate after round/argue with my decision) before i submit my rfd i will tank ur speaks and i will actively shut it down

b. if its a lay-dominated panel don't go flow just because i am on the panel or this goes for any lay-dominated panel as well, go lay and u might win the flow judge as well

c. have funnnn <3 ur already prob stressed just do what u usually do dont change anything for me (other than theory)

YOU ARE A GREAT DEBATER :))

Ben Isaak Kleiman Hire 8 rounds

Neal Klemba Hire 8 rounds

Neil Kreibich Hire 8 rounds

Kaveri Krishnamoorthy Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 11:58 AM EDT

Hi I'm Kaveri (she/her) and I debate PF at Newton South High School :)

Email: krishnam01772@gmail.com

TLDR: framing --> weighing--> offense --> default neg

You need to win your offense to win the weighing

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, basically write my RFD

Basics:

I’m a flow judge
Tech>Truth

I hate judge intervention so please don't make me do my own analysis
Point out things that are conceded or dropped
Postrounding is fine but it’s not going to make me change my decision
Be respectful or your speaks get tanked
Any explicit bigotry will result in an L20 and a report to Tabroom.

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread but if you are spreading:

1) send me and your opponents a speech doc

2) check with your opponents if it's okay with them

Evidence:

Don’t misconstrue evidence-- paraphrasing is fine but make sure you have good evidence ethics
I’ll only call cards if a team tells me to or if it is important towards my decision

[when you extend evidence, please extend the substance and not just the author name -- i value the content over just flowing the card name and date]

Cross:

If something important happens, bring it up in later speeches (otherwise I won't evaluate it)
Please don't be mean-- be respectful of your opponents

Rebuttal:

Signpost/tell me where you are on the flow, off-time roadmaps are ok but pls keep them concise
Well warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants
Everything in first rebuttal needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal

Summary/FF:

Summary + FF should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL, everything you extend in final should have been in summary)
Everything 2nd rebuttal needs to be frontlined in first summary
Collapse on one argument PLEASE (quality over quantity)
WEIGHING is key, please don't forget

Don’t forget to weigh turns please, I can’t really evaluate them otherwise
Remember to meta-weigh (weigh the clashing weighing mechanisms)
Respond to your opponents weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded

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

If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to ask me before round!

And if you have questions about my decision, please ask me as well.

Emily Kwan Hire 8 rounds None

Gabriel Lawrence RED 9 rounds None

Eli Leadham Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2024 at 12:14 PM PDT

Sam Barlow '22 - ld and policy

Wake Forest ‘26 - ndt/ceda policy

they/he

Yes, add me to the email chain: leadthem.eli@gmail.com

Background: I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debate for four years in Oregon. Currently, I debate in College Policy at Wake Forest University. I was a finalist at CEDA Debate Nationals in 2024. I have now been coaching high school LD and Policy for the past theee years and have taught at multiple camps.

As a debater, I read mostly kritiks, soft left policy, and theory. I’m best in clash debates, K v K, or K v T-FWK debates. Also, if you would like to talk about Wake Forest or about attending RKS, feel free to send me an email! Also email me any other questions you have, as a debater I remember I benefited a lot form the guidance of a few judges in particular.

Pref Short Cuts:

1 - identity/performance, pomo/high theory ks

2 - phil

3 - policy, theory

4 - tricks

General things to note:

Speed is fine, it's just a question of clarity. Please be clear.

At the end of the round, I vote on arguments that can be articulated back to debaters.

I prefer rebuttals that have crystallization and lay out the debate. Please be comparative.

Please, please, please record your speeches/debates.

Case

Going for straight case is perhaps the best thing a 1NC can read in front of me. I‘ve almost never not voted on this strategy because a lot of debaters are a lot less ready to actually defend their case than you may think.

Kritiks

I went for the Kritik in almost all of my rounds senior year. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating and what I live for, so please don’t make me sad. I highly value stepping outside of your literature’s jargon especially when said literature is dense. Also, framing is massively underutilized in these debates and you need a robust defense of your theory of power. Use examples, they help clarify your theory of power, advocacy, and link story. I’m not picky about how you read a Kritik and don’t think Ks require an alternative. Links of omission are bad and specific links to the affirmative are good.

Policy Arguments

I like these debates when debaters fully explain their scenarios as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence. In dense policy rounds, please take note of my lack of experience in these debates and adjust by over emphasizing depth over breadth. Thus, policy teams should pref me as a clash judge that leans more critical. With that, I think the aff really needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates. Generally, I think conditionality is good but more than two off-case positions the more I can be persuaded otherwise.

Theory

I lean towards competing interpretations over reasonability but can be persuaded otherwise. Theory is by default a priori, you can make the argument that it isn’t or that I should evaluate something else first. Fairness and education are bad voters alone, so please contextualize what kind of fairness and education. When going for theory please please please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications. I don’t recommend going for the RVI in front of me.

Additionally, I have NO interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments. I will immediately lower your speaks. I’m just not the judge you should pref for any of those arguments. If the argument doesn’t have a warrant, I will not vote for it.

Topicality/T-FWK

It’s fine but I find it unimpressive. If you go for a good case press instead, you’ll be strongly rewarded! I lean more toward competing interpretations than reasonability. Aff teams must answer the TVA. Again fairness isn’t a voter on its own so please contextualize what you mean or if you’re just trying to get out of a hard conversation. I will be more persuaded by standards like clash and topic education.

Ethics Questions

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused.

If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C.

Questions of misrepresentation/miscutting should be addressed in the round - in whatever form you determine to be best.

Online Debating

Please start off at 75% of your speed and then gradually get faster. Overcompensating for clarity is critical to dealing with internet lag. I will not vote on arguments that I don’t catch on the flow. If you do little to compensate for online debate I am heavily open to just saying "I didn't catch that argument" as my RFD.

Speaks

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny – I assign speaks relative to the pool.

Brandon Lu YELLOW 9 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:35 PM EDT

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

Rebecca Mackay RED

Taban Malihi Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:47 AM EDT

Hi hi I'm Taban (she/her/hers), a 3rd year public forum debater at Newton South :) Pls include me on the email chain.

Debate should be a safe and accessible environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before, during, or after round pls feel free to fill out this anonymous form or reach out to me at my email tmalihi1@gmail.com (I'll be checking it regularly during rounds/tournaments I judge)

On that note, be respectful or your speaks will suffer. In speeches, cross, when asking for evidence, always. If you read a triggering case and don't read content warnings that everyone in the round (judges included) can anonymously opt out of, it's an auto L with the lowest speaks I can give, same goes for bigoted arguments/rhetoric. General guideline: read warnings for suicide, domestic violence, sexual violence, and graphic descriptions of violence & suffering.

Disclosure: I can't disclose for LS but I'll be giving comments.

Panel tips: If I'm on a panel please adapt to the other judges' needs--I can follow a lay round, but lay judges can't often follow a flow round. Basically, just go FLAY: keep a narrative, but use efficiency+rhetoric to win on the flow.

Below I've separated my paradigm into a Novices section, Varsity section, and Everyone section. Feel free to read as much or as little as you'd like--basically I'm your standard flow judge.

তততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততততত

Novices! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

I do my best to evaluate the round based on the defense and offense I have written down at the end of the round, and I really don't like having to intervene to make decisions. It's your job to tell me clearly why you win a round--write my ballot for me :)

General strategy things I like:

1. I care about your presentation, but as long as I can understand your points it doesn't matter what your speaking style is. I encourage you to try out new things and not worry about things like tripping up, stuttering, etc.--these are all part of the learning process and it's my responsibility as a judge to make sure y'all have a safe space

2. I highly recommend that you "collapse"--that means that in summary and final focus, you're going to choose only one of your arguments to talk about. For me, a single well-explained argument is ALWAYS better than two or three barely-explained arguments. The earlier in the round you collapse, the better!

3. Weigh your arguments! This tells me where to look first to evaluate arguments. Win your argument, win the weighing you used with it, and I'll 97% of the time vote on it

4. Point out things that are conceded or dropped by your opponents (if they don't respond to it in the speech after it's introduced, it's conceded/dropped. This means you probably win it, but please! If you want me to vote off of it, you HAVE to continue to explain it in every speech after that.)

Feel free to email me after round if you'd like more in-depth feedback or have questions :)

****************

Varsity! Hello besties!

See the "Everyone" section below this for specifics on everything in round.

TLDR:

Here’s how I evaluate the round: Framing --> weighing --> offense --> default 1st speaking team

You need to win your offense to win the weighing :)

Essentially make me do as little work as possible, judge intervention is not a fun time for anyone, do the analysis and write my RFD for me <3

I’m a flow judge
Tech>Truth
Topicality>Theory

Disclaimer: might not be the best at evaluating progressive arguments, Kritiks and non-frivolous theory (including in-round violations) are ok, but def not a fan of disclosure/paraphrase theories (regardless of my personal beliefs on debate norms)
Please don’t run stuff just to win rounds because you know your opponents can’t respond to it. I am especially inclined to believe performative contradictions (ex: that disclosure shell one might read on a pair of novices in JV quarters, but didn’t read in a single other round, is probably not on-net helping debate norms, which makes me doubt the motives behind it). However, if it’s clear you’re reading your argument because it genuinely means a lot to you and/or exposing more people to its content would be beneficial, I will do my best to evaluate it in any round.

Point out things that are conceded or dropped (including defense--it’s not sticky)

⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆ S̶̙͔͚̪͉̲̼͙̆̓͛͂̿͂̆P̴̧̳̤̰̟̘͚̘͙͇̚E̴̗̰̎̂̈́C̷̤̹̯̥̟͌̃̌̋̔͝Í̸͈̱͍͇̻̲̔̂̄͒̂̕̚͠F̷̛͚͍̼͍̣͉̣̱̟̠͂̊̊̓̉̌̽Į̴̣̟̜͔͈͚͙̠̃̐́̓̐̃̃͘̕͝ͅC̸̢̤̮̒̒̇̔̄̋͆̓̕Ṣ̶̡̲̮͓̫͉̲͑⋆┈┈｡ﾟ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ❁ུ۪ ❃ུ۪ ❀ུ۪ ﾟ｡┈┈⋆

*THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY*

Speed:

Please try not to go over 220 wpm or spread in any speech but if you do:

1) check with your opponents if it's okay with them

2) send everyone a speech doc with everything you read in round

*********************

Evidence:

Don’t misconstrue evidence--paraphrasing is fine but please make sure you have good evidence ethics. I won't drop you for badly misconstrued evidence unless your opponents read args as to why I should, in any case I will probably just not evaluate the evidence/argument in my decision
I’ll only look at/call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision
When you extend evidence throughout every speech in the round, please extend the actual logic/warrant and not just the author name -- I value the content over just flowing the card name and date

*********************

Cross:

I will be using this time to figure things out on my end, set up my flow for the next speeches, and write up my comments, so I won't flow during cross

Please be respectful. If you're rude, aggressive, or consistently speak over others, your speaks will suffer.

*********************

Rebuttal:

Please signpost/tell me where you are on the flow, off-time roadmaps are ok but pls keep them concise

Well warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants/logic ("Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO." -EK)
Second rebuttal should at least respond to offense (turns, disads, weighing, etc.) and terminal defense
All turns/disads need impacts, or else I don't know how to evaluate them. Weighing can come in summary.

**********************

Summary/FF:

Summary + FF should mirror each other and have the same material (NO STICKY DEFENSE IN FINAL FOCUS, everything you extend in final focus should have been in summary, from the warrants to the impacts to the weighing)
First final can have new-ish responses to new stuff in second summary, but second final should have nothing new at all (I will know)
Collapse however you like, but quality over quantity--if I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote on it.
WEIGHING is key--tell me why your arguments are more important than/matter more than theirs :)

Weigh case/turns/disads
Interact with your opponents' weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it goes conceded. NOTE: just because your weighing is conceded doesn’t mean you stop explaining it, please warrant it out every time

Meta-weigh (weigh your weighing mechanisms over their weighing mechanisms)

***********************

Thresholds for new responses:

- Offense (turns, disads): second rebuttal at the latest. First rebuttal, they don't need to be weighed, but second rebuttal, please weigh to give your opponents time to respond in first summary.

- Weighing: second summary by the latest, I'm good with meta-weighing in first final if it involves previously existing weighing in response to your opponent's weighing. The earlier you start this, the better <3

- Defense (in response to their case): second rebuttal

- Responses to their defense/frontlines/backlines: in the speech after it was introduced, otherwise what they say goes conceded, and the last I should hear of these should be first final focus at the very, very latest (and even then it's a little late)...second final focus should have nothing new at all, please

**********************

Speaker points: I base my speaker points on how well you balance technicality and maintaining a solid narrative! If I can understand your arguments and you're respectful, you will get a minimum of 28 speaks.

+0.5 speaker points for a speech doc for every speech (even when you don't spread)
Collapse in 2nd rebuttal! You choose ONE argument to focus on/vote on this early in the round, I give you +0.5 speaker points. Win-win.

-----｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆----‧͙⁺˚*･༓☾ ⊹ ‧̫‧ ⊹ ☽༓･*˚⁺‧͙---- ｡･:*:･ﾟ★,｡･:*:･ﾟ☆-----

i agree with these paradigms

Enya Kamadolli: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Andrew Li: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=99668

Zach Diar: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Michael Chu: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Joy Taw: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

Mira Mehta Hire 8 rounds

Jesse Meyer PINK 9 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:18 AM CDT

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Emil Moffa Hire 8 rounds None

Shemayah Moore PINK 9 rounds None

Peter Mugaba Noertoft PERIWINKLE 9 rounds

Jaehyun Jane Park Hire 8 rounds

Valeria Proekt Hire 8 rounds

Sameeha Saleem Hire 8 rounds

Ayrah Shafat Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 6:36 AM EDT

Hello, my name is Ayrah and I am a sophomore student in high school. I have debated public forum for three and a half years, and this is my second year of judging debates. That being said, here are a few of my preferences/tips for when it comes to a round:

1) I don't take crossfire into consideration unless you bring up what was said in your speeches. So, if you managed to get your opponent to slip up during a crossfire or perhaps you answered/rebutted their questions/points cleverly and really want to showcase that to me, you should include it in your summaries, final focuses or rebuttals. Be weary not to drop any arguments.

2) I don't mind if you talk fast, just don't spread. I will time you but I also recommend you time yourself to be able to know when and how to pace yourself.

3) Weighing is very important to me, because your weighing is pretty much selling your arguments to me. I would like to see weighing in the summary and especially final focus, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in rebuttal speeches as well. But don't make your weighing just one sentence such as "We win on scope because we affect more people because [insert basic response]" etc. I'd like to see you elaborate on your weighing because again, that is a big part of what sells your arguments to me. In addition, when you state your contentions during your first speech, I need to know why your reason for or against an argument matters because again, you want to emphasize that your contentions matter (impact) and aren't just a list of pros or cons. Also, make sure you don't have any defensive arguments or else you have little to no impact.

4) I prefer the use of a framework but make sure it isn't anything like "If we prove to you that the pros outweigh the cons we win" because that's rather obvious and so it ends up being a waste of a few crucial seconds.

5) I recommend you use your prep time wisely and not let it go to waste because it is given to you for a reason. Writing on the spot can be very stressful (trust me, I'd know), but if you learn to maximize your prep time, it will gradually make things easier for you.

I hope this doesn't come off as intimidating! I am no perfect debater and I've definitely had my moments both in the spotlight and in moments I wish I could forget when it comes to debate. Just because I might be older or have debated longer doesn't necessarily mean that I am much better than you. I am just using my debate experience over the course of the past few years to try and provide any insight I can to help you improve, and of course, to try to be a fair judge. With all that said, I wish you good luck!

Joey Shi Hire 8 rounds None

Abigail Shin Hire

Evelyn Shvartsman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 9:28 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Evelyn and I am currently a high school policy debater and judge. I competed in PF debate for two years, and below I provided a list of things I look for when judging both PF and Policy rounds. Feel free to read it over and take a few minutes to prepare before the round starts.

PF Preferences:

1. I flow each part of the debate, but I usually don't take crossfire into consideration. Make sure to state all of the necessary rebuttals in your summary and final focus.

a. Do not add anything new in FF. If you add a new thought or rebuttal in final focus I will take points off!

2. If you would like to pull any cards, please pull them during YOUR prep. Time will not be counted during the search.

3. Please refrain typing in the chat while the other team/your teammate is speaking. You are allowed to put sources in the chat if the opposing side asks your team for it AFTER they are done speaking.

4. Interrupting is fine when you are responding to an argument, but not when you are preventing your opponents from making one.

5. I will be timing the speaker, but I recommend you also time yourself. I will NOT warn you once time is up. If the speaker goes overtime, I will flow all claims ten seconds after time is up. After those ten seconds, I will no longer be taking note.

6. If the opposing side does not respond to a claim/response, there's no need to repeat it. It is a waste of time.

9. Weigh a lot in final focus (and summary). The final focus is the last thing I jot down from each team, so try to weigh as much as you can.

Speaker Points: Losing team starts at 26. Winning team starts at 27. I do not go any lower than 26 unless discriminatory and/or racial language is used.

Policy Preferences:

1. I use Bergen County Debate League judge sheets to flow and judge.

2. I am well aware of the five pillars of debate, but please be specific in both affirmative and negative when referring to specific details that pertain to the pillars, as it's easier for me to go back on my judge sheet and see your arguments.

3. Use up all your time, I take off a point every 30 seconds you go over/under in the speech.

4. You are not permitted but can answer questions in crossfire after time is up.

5. I've won multiple judge awards for policy debates so there is no need to remind me specific regulations during your speeches (such as the idea that you only need to break one pillar to win on NEG), it is a waste of time as I am aware of the rules.

6. If AFF and NEG tie, NEG automatically wins.

Speaker Points: I look at analysis, evidence, organization, and presentation and present individual and overall points for each category depending on the ballot.

If you have any questions before or after the round, please feel free to ask. I will not disclose the results at the end of the round.

Lastly, be confident! Good luck.

Gabriel Stein Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 16, 2021 at 5:25 AM EDT

I try to be a tabula rasa, or blank slate, judge, meaning that I attempt not to have any preconceived notions about how I should evaluate the round. Instead, I hope teams engage in the theory debate, at minimum telling me why they think they should win the round (not just that they should win). Of course, truly blank slate judges don't exist. So, here are some of my biases: I truly believe all aspects of debate are themselves debatable, including the purpose of debate. But, unless you argue convincingly otherwise, I typically don't think winning a theory argument is itself a reason you should win. The abuse has to be very specific to the round, not an extension of a generic shell. Instead, my bias is that the theory debate should provide a framework for the debaters and the judges to understand and evaluate the rest of the round's content.

If neither team argues for a preferred evaluation framework, I will mostly default to what you might call a "hypothesis tester" framework. In general, this means that I assume the affirmative/pro case is true on its merits first, then look to see if any of the negative/con arguments have successfully disproven the affirmative/pro's case. In the absence of any arguments from the teams about how to approach this, I'll try to take the easiest possible route to disprove the aff case, which is typically impact-based analysis.

All of this should add up to mean that I am open to all types of arguments. But there's a huge caveat: I was a pretty serious policy debater in high school, but I haven't been exposed to much of it for 15 years, so I'm quite rusty, especially when it comes to technical aspects. I think it's best practice anyway, but you shouldn't assume that I'm up to speed on any frameworks or terminology or resolutions in LD, policy or PF debate, and instead help me by explaining how your arguments should function and what any technical terms mean.

Arjun Surya Hire 8 rounds

Anya Tang NAVY 9 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 7:35 AM EDT

Please put me on the email chain 4ristotle.x@gmail.com.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line and uses creative round vision. Debaters reading fun arguments and having fun is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event and I greatly appreciate it when teams use grand cross differently/creatively (i.e. students who use grand to ask how everyone's day is; students who use grand to discuss and propose moves towards equity in the event). I believe Ks need alts in PF.

LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more creative sequencing in this event.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks

General - I judge infrequently now. I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be a (temporary) ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your form and content. If I am nodding/shaking my head/raising my eyebrows/other weird facial expressions, please ignore me. Those are just my thinking expressions, and not a reflection on how I feel about the debate. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity.

Speaks- My speaks average a 29.4. They start/remain high most of the time, especially during bubble rounds. I will not vote on 30 speaks theory as a shell -- just tell me why you want 30 speaks for you and/or your opponent(s) and I will evaluate that instead if it is important for you. If there's something really egregious pointed out to me in the round, speaks will reflect that.

Speed - Number your responses. Please. More things on doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways. Just cut down the case. Cut an off if you can. I am totally down to vote on speed bad in these rounds.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson after the round with you.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions. Please be respectful of my time. Ask me for lit recs! (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts- For every student I judge, but especially students of color, queer/trans students, misogyny-affected students, students with disabilities, and first generation/low-income students: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. Y'all are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: I am a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage, and a good judge for you if this is your millionth time reading your favorite K author. I have the same expectations for your engagement with the scholarship in both cases; this is to say, I hope you provide a rigorous and original synthesis of the author(s) that you read with the topic that you choose to think through/with/against/beyond. What does this look like: you are identifying specific parts of the topic that you are critiquing, articulating how the impact interacts with the affirmative, and explaining why I need to frame the round in a certain way.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC). My one exception to this is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and critical scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Direct outing. Financial status, disability, queerness/transness, gender, trauma -- if you force your opponent to disclose that they have a disability to avoid a theory shell, I will be unhappy. I like it even less when y'all spend half an hour before round digging up your opponent's personal information, school, neighborhood, etc. It's unsafe, violating, and makes a lot of assumptions. If your opponent argues that this should be a reason to drop you, I will be inclined to drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. I evaluate direct outing differently from arguments that a certain model/method outs people and renders them vulnerable to structures of harm. What does this look like? "Are you queer?" "Can you afford a coach?" "Do you have a disability?" I understand debaters have good intentions and want to make rounds accessible sometimes. I also understand finding spaces of affinity is difficult. But I ask that y'all not do it under the competitive tensions of an adjudicated round. One way that has been helpful for me (and perhaps you have other suggestions) has been to ask, "What are some things I can do to make the round accessible for the both of us? For me, it would help to have 14pt or larger font for our tags."

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Sean Wallace Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 2:52 PM EDT

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

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

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

OV:

1. I don't have much topic knowledge.

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

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

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

Policy stuff:

I judge this most.

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

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

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

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

Planless affs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lillian Wilson Hire 8 rounds None

Kevin Wong PERIWINKLE 9 rounds

Sophia Xing Hire 8 rounds None

Catherine Yang Hire 8 rounds

Marcus Ye Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 6:16 PM EDT

he/him -- south '24

add me to the chain: marcus.ye@bc.edu

TLDR: just weigh and warrant well.

FOR NOVICES: treat me like a flay and don't worry about anything else below. Debate can be scary sometimes and if you need anything in the round to make it less so, lmk.

Everyone else:

if you do anything mean or that makes the debate space less inclusive I will drop your speaks and, depending on the severity, drop you

I’m hearing impaired so please speak loudly, it helps you.

debate is a game — tech > truth — but im old and lazy so don't run anything too crazy.

If you wanna go fast send a doc or else you're coinflipping the round. If I don't understand what you are saying, thats on you

You can go over time alittle i don't mind.

I don't care about CX, but still be nice. I’ll dock speaks if you are shouting over or cutting your opps off short. If anything important comes up in cross, mention in your speeches.

Warrants need to be extended through every speech for case or defense. no offensive overviews in 2nd rebuttal. Blippy one liners are not enough to grant defense if its not warranted.

If you don't weigh I’ll be very unhappy. Link weighing > Impact weighing and I presume first if no offense is weighed. ALL TURNS MUST BE WEIGHED OR ELSE ITS NOT OFFENSE.

I have a major distain for any type of prog but I do understand why its needed in the debate space. You can still run it and I'll still vote on it, you just need to explain it like you would a toddler to me. However, I'll auto drop any team that runs prog in any division below varsity no questions asked.

If I am on a panel and ALL the other judges are on the other end of the judge spectrum (lay-flay), I'll proceed to adapt to them unless both teams ask me not to. This will be done without me telling you in the round, we're not trying to demean judges.

Post round all you want. I think asking questions after round is a good norm and I'll try my best to provide advice, etc.

I hate bad evidence. If evidence becomes a big part of the ballot, I'll call for it after the round. I will drop teams based off bad evidence.

Auto default to 28s for speaks and goes up and down from there. Make the round funny and enjoyable for everyone and speaker points tend to be pretty high.

You can always find me on facebook or email me if you want more comments/flow etc or just search me up on instagram

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Melanie Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

NYCUDL Summer Institute Tournament

2021 — Online, NY/US

PF Paradigm List

Judges