Hi! I debated for 7 years, 4 of which I spent competing in public forum on the national circuit. I coach for Notre Dame San Jose in NorCal and coached a private team to its #3 ranking in the US. (I'm also a proud ISD staffer! Let me know if you have any questions. :)

I am flow. Regardless, I believe the best arguments are true arguments. They tend to have real evidence.

General

If you want to win the round, do these things:

1. Be respectful. Be nice to your partner and your opponents.

2. Be consistent. The arguments you talk about in summary MUST BE the arguments you talk about in final focus.

3. Warrant things. Debating without warrants is the equivalent of Monty Python's Argument Clinic. You need to tell me WHY I should believe your response to the other team's case (and vise versa). Basically, just tack on a "because" explanation to all your evidence.

*Warrants on evidence must be in every speech. Yes, that includes summary.

4. Weigh. Tell me why your arguments are the most important. To weigh properly, you MUST COMPARE your point to their point.

5. Signpost. Tell me what argument you are going to talk about before you start talking about it. Numbering your responses and points will help.

6. Clear! Tell the other team if they are talking too fast for you to understand. Loudly say "clear!"

Evidence

I will call for evidence if it is contested or if I am curious. If I discover evidence you lied about, I will evaluate the round as if it didn't exist. Also, I will probably ask for more of your evidence. :)

Asking Questions Post Round

I am happy to explain to you why you won or lost. Ask as many questions as you want, but don't be aggressive.

Pre-flows

Please do not delay the round with your pre-flowing. If you've debated your case before, just tear off the part of your old flow with your case on it and reuse that.

Read this if you talk fast:

*I don't flow spreading.

The round will be more pleasant if you talk slowly. If I'm judging you in the last round of the day, chances are I'm super tired and will not be as effective at flowing super fast talking. But, if you talk quickly, do these things:

1. Have clear diction

2. Do not read a million arguments. I will miss them in my notes and then you will be very sad. Also, the "spray and pray" method usually indicates that you don't have warrants. Warrants take up time, so if you are trying to get through things quickly to overwhelm your opponent, you are likely skipping essential warrants.

3. Don't use speed as a tactic to overwhelm the other team-that's not educational. If you go through an argument too quickly and it's hard to understand, I will have a very low threshold of what counts as a sufficient response.

4. Don't forget warrants. (Hey-wait a sec-that's in the paradigm three times!!! Maybe it's important. :)

Kudos for reading the entire paradigm! Tell me the typos you found so I can fix them. Have a great round!

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Yo. I graduated from Plano West '21 (CK) after debating for 4 years.

- Fully warrant your arguments the first time you read them. Don't make new warrants/implications after.

- Defense is sticky in summary if it wasn't responded to.

- Weigh early

- Extensions should fully reexplain the argument.

- Be quick when calling for evidence please.

- Speed is aight if both sides are cool with it but email chain me at (michaelc75025@gmail.com) if you want to spread.

- I debated a decent amount of theory rounds so I'm fairly comfortable there but for other forms of progressive argumentation I'll do my best to follow; explain things well.

- No exclusionary language or actions.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Hi, I did Public Forum debate for four years at Chagrin Falls High School in Cleveland Ohio.

*This paradigm is inspired by the iconic Albert Manfredi

Some things I like:

Warrants and lines of logic over evidence that is unwarranted

Weighing, start earlier and weigh alot

Front-lining in Second Rebuttal. You don't have to do this but I think it is a good idea

Narratives

Collapsing ***** 3 min summary does not mean go for more, just COLLAPSE BETTER *****

Some things I don't like:

Miscut Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing but please make sure its an accurate representation of the evidence (I reserve the right to drop you if it is seriously misrepresented)

Blippy Arguments that are not weighed, warranted, or implicated

Spreading

Theory / Ks unless there is a serious issue or abuse in the topic or the round. You should probably strike me if this is your thing.

Any bigoted argument I will immediately drop you no questions asked.

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

about me:

hey, i'm a student at northeastern university. i use they/them or he/him pronouns. i did PF for 4 years as a 2nd speaker in the central florida circuit with moderate success placing at several nat circuit tournaments & qualifying to CFL nats, NSDA nats, & TOC. i like dabbling in queer theory and political philosophy outside of debate. i like baudrillard, queer pessimism, and social ecology.

speaking:

i can handle speed, but avoid spreading. let me (and your opponents!) know ahead of time if you're going super fast & be ready to send a speech doc in case i need to ask for it. pts usually range 27 - 29.5

general judging attitude

imo anyone can read off a bunch of evidence and anyone can get prepped out by their coaches + team, but not everyone is capable of understanding + being fully responsive to the nuances of every case, giving well-informed logical and warranted responses to unfamiliar/unique args, weighing, etc. these are the qualities that, to me, make a genuinely good debater.

also, you can honestly keep it pretty casual during round cause debate tournaments are usually super stressful and everyone is really tense all the time so it is refreshing when you can all just chill and have fun with debate + your opponents

some stuff i like to see:

*these are not totally required and i think a cool part of debate is seeing people employ different strategies and styles so you can debate any way you'd like, but these are just some things that tend to help win over my ballot:

-weighing in rebuttal

-consistent narratives

-adding nuance or unique links/impacts to otherwise stock arguments

-frontlining in second rebuttal

-WARRANTING!!!!!!!!!!!! as my debate partner Amelia always said, "cards don't win rounds. warrants do"

-try to collapse in summary

-FF should mirror summary

-metaweighing lol

stuff i don't like:

-i will drop you and absolutely tank your speaks for any bigoted, discriminatory, or violent arguments + behavior

-miscut evidence. paraphrasing is fine, just stay true to what the text says.

-cardstacking. i really dont enjoy when debaters, typically during rebuttal, shoot out a bunch of blippy arguments that are not warranted, weighed, implicated, or extended in future speeches. blippy arguments are a waste of time to me.

-this one is a more personal nitpicky thing. i LOVE ecological args, but really dislike climate change args. there are so many ecological issues (all of which directly relate to social issues) that debaters could talk about, but everyone always defaults to climate change for some reason and i think it's actually quite harmful to our environmental discourses.

-general nastiness during round. you can 100% be aggressive but don't like go out of your way to be seriously mean to your opponents, espec if they tell you to stop

-rude spectators. if you bring in spectators that are rude, disruptive, loud, etc it'll reflect poorly on you and i will ask them to leave

miscellaneous stuff:

-you can run theory in front of me, just explain it comprehensibly. however, i did come from a small school with few resources and little help, so if you're smart i'd avoid hypocritically asking the judge to "prioritize small schools" while simultaneously leveraging the theory you learned from camp or your coaches against the small schools you claim to advocate for

-i don't flow cross. if something important happens in cross tell me in your next speech

-if there is a dispute about the credibility of your evidence/evidence being misconstrued, i may call for the card but if you, at any point in your speeches, ask me to call for a particular card, then i will do so at the end of the round (as long as you're not asking me to call for like 10 cards or something, that would be excessive)

-please time yourselves

-im always open to talk before round if your opponents havent arrived yet cause the pre-round silence is usually super awkward so some of my interests include queer theory, political philosophy, podcasts/audio dramas (the magnus archives, welcome to night vale, alice isn't dead, etc), indie garage rock music, film analysis, nbc's hannibal, environmental sociology, & investigative journalist/writer Robert Evans

-automatic 29-30 pts if you serenade me, bring me sushi (i like salmon), do a backflip, or show me that you have donated at least $5 to mutual aid (NOT CHARITY, IT HAS TO BE MUTUAL AID)

-email is chloe.lin.tu@gmail.com for email chains + any questions you have + if you just have any questions or anything after reading my RFD

I was a PF debater for Chagrin Falls High School in Cleveland, OH, for four years.

Things I like:

- Well-warranted, well-explained arguments. Tech and truth are not mutually exclusive. Logical warranting >>>>> a card dump. Cards/evidence give credence to what you're saying, but your argument should make sense without cards, too.

- Narrative & Contextualization. Explain how your argument fits into the broader picture.

- Weighing! When I say "weigh," I do not mean that you have to read a 7-pronged weighing mechanism with a bunch of buzzwords like 'magnitude' and 'scope'. Just tell me why what you're saying is important.

- Collapsing: 3 minute summary does not mean that you now have time to go for everything. In the words of Bob Dolan, "50% fewer arguments, 100% more analysis."

- Being nice

Things I don't like:

- Crazy speed

- Theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. Please don't read disclosure theory to me.

- Card dumps

- Blippy argumentation: The less-warranted your argument, the lower the threshold for responding to it. I will not be persuaded by teams who read 50 turns in rebuttal and then collapse on the ONE turn that their opponents missed.

- Rudeness. If you are disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you, regardless of the state of the flow.

If you have any questions at all, or if there is any jargon in the above paradigm that you don't understand, please ask for clarification!!

background:

hi! my name is Amelia (she/her) and I am a student at the University of Florida. I competed in PF as 1st speaker for 4 years on the Central Florida circuit with some success placing at nat circuit tournaments and qualifying to CFL nats, NSDA nats, FL states, and TOC. My strongest belief is that debate should be fun, educational, and accessible so try to have a good time and relax (you've got this!)

speaking:

I am fine with speed, but please try to avoid spreading. If you are going to read abnormally fast, be prepared to send a speech doc and verify that it's okay with your opponents first. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5.

general:

-I REALLY like to see actual analysis and warranting. Anyone can be prepped out by their team and just read off cards, it takes a debater to be able to break down evidence and explain the WHY and the nuances behind it. I am a firm believer that "cards don't win rounds, warrants do" so keep that in mind.

-racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, or discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated and I will automatically drop you and give you low speaks.

-I will call for cards if there is debate about misconstruing, so if you are going to paraphrase (which I am fine with) just stay true to the text.

-I flow everything except for cross, so if you would like cross to be acknowledged on the flow, bring it up in your next speech.

what I like to see (not mandatory to win my ballot, just preferences):

-weighing in rebuttal

-narratives that flow from speech to speech

-consistency and communication between partners (summary and ff should go hand in hand)

-frontlining in second rebuttal

-collapsing in summary

-warranting!!

what I am not a huge fan of:

-cardstacking: I am a huge proponent of quality > quantity, so I do not like a bunch of blippy rebuttal arguments stack on top of each other with little to no analysis

-rude spectators: your spectators need to be respectful of your opponents, meaning they are quiet and not disruptive. I will ask them to leave otherwise.

-theory is not my favorite because it was relatively new to PF when I competed and I do not have a large grasp on it. I am fine if you run it, however, just explain it logically and do not assume that I understand what you are talking about.

-try not to get too heated with your opponents. Remember that you will never convince your opponents, instead you are trying to convince your judge. I know things get heated sometimes, which is fine because I understand how passionate you are (I was like that too) but keep your focus on the judge.

my email is ameliapackham1@gmail.com for any email chains or if you would like additional feedback after you see/hear my RFD

Good luck and please feel free to ask questions before round! I will disclose if the tournament allows it and I try to give comprehensive written feedback as well :) Regardless if you win or lose, I hope you will learn something from the round. My strongest growth occurred after my losses, so please take everything with a grain of salt and do not set your worth on the result. Debate is an activity that requires you to put yourself out there and I know the dedication that all of you have put towards this activity is tremendous. You should already feel proud of yourselves for all of the work and time you have put into this activity (I know that I am proud of you!)

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

TOC: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

What's up I did PF for four years from plano west '21 (IS)

shahrukhshowkath@gmail.com

You can ask me questions before the round if you have any after reading this

Tech> truth but if its something weird, you will have to work harder to get my ballot

I'm probably not familiar with any of the topics so explain unusual terminology

I'm ok with speed for the most part but send speech doc if spreading. If it is too fast/can't understand you, I'm just not gonna flow it.

Theory is ok but I'm not completely familiar with it. For any progressive argument, it's best if the argument is fleshed out to me simplistically and I'll do my best to follow

Either line by line/big picture summary is ok

Second rebuttal should reply to first

When extending, fully extend the argument

if comparing evidence, please tell me in round or else I have to do it myself and you can guess how that's gonna go

Warrant. don't make new warrants later

Weigh.

Collapse.

Signpost.

be quick when calling for evidence pleasee4eeeeeeeee

no exclusionary actions or language.

debate well.

I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I just graduated from Duke University and am finishing up my fourth year coaching PF at Durham Academy.

For Nats 2023, please put me on the email chain- smith.emmat@gmail.com.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

- Please preflow before the round. Holding up the tournament to take 15 min to preflow in the room is really annoying :(

- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason. At the very least, I'll tank your speaks and write you a kindly worded educational ballot about making rounds unnecessarily hostile.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- HUGE DISCLAIMER: My biggest pet peeve in PF right now is the use of progressive args to make rounds inaccessible to teams who don't know how to handle them. Reading progressive args against a clearly inexperienced team to get a cheap win is an easy way to auto lose my ballot. ALSO I am really not confident in my abilities to evaluate progressive arguments. If you choose to run them, you take on the risk of me making the wrong decision despite doing my best. Proceed with caution!

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.