hattieb@gmail.com <3

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Hey there! I debated PF all four years in HS on the texas and national circuit, graduated from Plano West '21. Put me on the email chain: alynie@wharton.upenn.edu

• An extension is a (brief) explanation of what the argument is, what the link from the resolution is, and what the impact is. You must do all three for me in both summary + ff to evaluate this argument at the end of the round. You don't have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Speaking of offense, here's how I vote: After the rounds over, I look for remaining, withstanding offense for both sides (this means any offense extended in both summary & final focus with no terminal defense on it). Offense needs to be compatible (ie. i don't buy two arguments simultaneously if they fundamentally contradict; I'll resolve it otherwise). If both sides have offense, I'll then vote based on whatever weighing/framing you have done; otherwise, if there is no comparative weighing, I'll make my own judgment. If neither side has offense, I'll vote on the closest thing to offense I can find. I'm pretty receptive to whatever weird strategy in the back half you go for (dropping case for turns, etc)!
• I'll disclose if I can. You can ask for feedback, and post-rounding is totally fine. I think it's my responsibility to articulate an RFD everyone understands, and I'll drop you with 30s if you can reasonably convince me I was wrong (ofc, given it's a productive discussion).
• I care about making the round a positive experience for everyone! Just don't be a terrible person and you should be okay in this regard.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

I did PF for four years in HS and have coached PF for 4 years since. I was head PF coach for the Bronx High School of Science in the 20-21 year, and am an incoming graduate student in Philosophy. My pronouns are he/him.

Students' safety and comfort is my top priority in round so I will drop debaters who, in whatever way, make the round less safe/comfortable for other debaters (purposefully or otherwise). I also encourage debaters in the round to press claims to this effect in or outside of speeches, whether those claims are against their opponents, me, an observer, etc. Feel free to get in touch with me via email (nathan.witkin@gmail.com), including during the round.

Please default to they/them pronouns, should you be unsure of anyone's preferences.

---

I'm fine with speed, K debate, theory, etc. but clarity (w/r/t explanation and articulation) is a must esp. online. Consider that the odds I miss something scales with speed. I may ask for clarification if your audio cuts out at any point.

Defense is not "sticky," i.e. must be extended in every speech just like offense. Following from this, extension through ink is fine if your opponents don't extend the ink. This includes cases where a team extends conceded defense into summary, but not into FF. The defense is lost if not extended into FF. Second rebuttal still should frontline, because I don't accept completely new frontlining in second summary (you can still develop a previous defense debate in new ways).

New weighing in either summary is fine, but not in FF. As with defense in rebuttal/summary, I'm relatively permissive when it comes to what is "new," so you have some leeway to further develop prior disputes about weighing/defense/offense in FF. The rough threshold is whether what you're adding in later speeches can be reasonably construed as entailed by something said earlier (it is usually permissible to further specify or explain something, even if it has been mostly implicit up until the later speech).

I won't call evidence unless you tell me to, or unless I need it to make any decision at all (for instance, if the round hinges entirely on one piece of evidence).

On progressive arguments [in PF]: as a result of my academic background, there is a solid chance I will be at least somewhat familiar with the literature on what you are running. That means I may have a higher standard for what a sufficient explanation of the argument ought to look like. Your argument should be well-explained enough that unfamiliar opponents won't be classed out of the round by jargon. Relatedly, don't treat abstract impacts like those to reinforcing patriarchy (etc.) as magical trump cards for outweighing more generic PF impacts (I think this does a serious disservice to them, and often evinces a lack of understanding of the arguments themselves and their significance). That goes for post-fiat arguments and for pre-fiat ones you might be weighing against (for example) the educational value of traditional substance-debates. If you think your impact in either case should get special priority, weigh it like any other. The bottom line for me is that what you're reading is ultimately just like any other argument, and won't on face be treated differently because you're drawing from one academic literature (e.g. post-colonial studies, critical sociology, etc.), as opposed to another (economics, political science, etc.), unless of course you give me an uncontested or contested but won reason why.

Two addendums for rare(ish) situations:

1. I don't allow second-speaking team to trick first by frontlining one contention and then going for the other (since, if defense is not sticky, first team might then have dropped all their defense on the non-frontlined, but surprisingly extended contention if they did not predict the trick, and then lose access to it later since it wasn't in first summary). It's conceivable I might let this possibility stand, which would require first team to always extend at least one piece of terminal defense on non-frontlined args as insurance, but this seems like an unnecessary burden.

2. Weighing that is introduced in first rebuttal does not need to be frontlined in second rebuttal. I allow the second team to respond to weighing for the first time in second summary (it still might be a good idea to also respond in the rebuttal).

Let me know if you have any further questions before the round starts.

hi, i'm AJ! i graduated from Plano West in 2021 and competed in PF on the national circuit. my pronouns are they/them, and my email is ayi@college.harvard.edu.

- priority #1 is safety; be cognizant of your presence in the round/community, don’t be a problematic human being, use correct pronouns, provide content warnings with opt outs, etc.

- would strongly prefer if y’all came in preflowed and coin flipped/ready to go!

- outside of that, do whatever makes the debate enjoyable :) below are my preferences that might make it easier for you to win, but really do whatever you like. if you are compelling and/or justify decisions against my preferences below, you will likely be okay!

things i like in debate / things to know about me as a judge:

- i think about debate pretty similarly to renee li, alyssa nie, and aditya kumar.

- i'm quite expressive in response to what y'all say (though i also just nod/furrow my eyebrows in confusion a lot). i don’t like most pf arguments and still vote off of them so don’t be intimidated! but feel free to use my facial cues as you see fit.

- please prioritize warrants throughout the round, do not be blippy with them, and have clear extensions of your entire link chain and impact in the second half for anything you want me to vote on (including turns). any offense i vote on must be extended clearly in both summary and final focus and include good warranting.

- please collapse as much as possible. i really like smart analytics and strategic decisions, much more than blippy, unintelligent dumps of as much as you can possibly get through.

- new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such

- you don't need to frontline defense in 2nd rebuttal, but whatever you don't fl can be extended straight into 1st ff. i think it probably makes for a more in depth debate if you fl defense and collapse in 2nd rebuttal, but it's up to you.

- on weighing: being comparative between the actual nuanced arguments on the flow (as opposed to the general idea of an argument i.e. climate change) when weighing or responding is really really important to me. i am not too impressed with the meta of broad prereq weighing that doesn’t actually make sense when considering your link chain’s effect on the impact.

- that said, please weigh, and please start it by summary!

- dislike: doc botting, blowing up blips in final, independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal, excessively unclear speed, overgeneralizations of arguments or of the squo, jargon (define terms if absolutely necessary) being called judge, friv theory (unless its actually funny)

- don’t really care about: crossfire (feel free to take 1.5 min of prep instead of gcx), author names (just cite stuff consistently), most presentation things (sit/stand/whatever you’d like)

- super down to give as detailed feedback as y'all want, but i know thats not always what anyone wants to listen to immediately after an rfd. so i'll default to giving just the rfd - if you want advice beyond that ask me after round/message me. also please reach out even if you just want to talk about debate/hs/life! AJ Yi on FB, @aj__yi on Insta