Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

---

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

Strake Jesuit '19 | UT Austin '23 | SMU Law '26

He/Him/His

Email Chain/Questions: caden.day@utexas.edu

Please start an email chain as early as you can before the round starts. Also, I can absolutely tell when you are stealing prep while "trying to get the email to send" or while "waiting for the email to send." Please don't do that.

TLDR

Tech>Truth. Read anything that isn't exclusionary. Warrant everything (cards, analytics, extensions, etc.). Extend all parts of your arguments (including turns).

Tech>Truth

You can genuinely read anything in front of me as long as it's explained well. I'm most familiar with/primarily read Theory, Plans/CPs, off-case Disads, soft-left Ks, and framework/philosophical arguments. I am less familiar with non-t arguments and tricks. But again, read them if that's your style! I can keep up.

Tricks without warrants will be treated similarly to any other argument without a warrant—they will be given very little credence. So, if you plan on reading tricks, don't just dump them on the flow. Take time to explain the warranting in them.

There is, of course, the obvious exception to my "read anything" policy, which is that I ask you to foster an inclusive and educational environment.

Speaking Style and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy. I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are going to read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names. If, in later speeches, you aren't relying on a doc, dial back the speed a bit so I don't miss anything.

I will dock your speaker points if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. Tell me if you have disclosed your cases because I won't check for you.

Summary/Final Focus

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each). Extensions of taglines or claims alone are insufficient. Please please please extend warranting and analysis.

Similarly, if going for link turns, extend the impact that you're co-opting; if going for impact turns, extend the link that you're co-opting.

Miscellaneous Stuff

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Defensive extensions should be in every speech - it is not sticky.

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded.

Any misrepresented evidence that is called to my attention by your opponents will be struck from the flow. In especially egregious cases, I reserve the right to severely dock your speaks or drop you outright.

If you have more specific questions, don't be afraid to ask them before rounds! Similarly, if you have questions about my decision after the round, ask away! It won't impact your speaks or my decision or anything like that. I want you to leave the round with a better understanding of my RFD if you feel confused.

Email is zkaufmann24@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make a round better for you!

Some general notes:

* Make strategic decisions!

* Please, for the love of all that is holy, put a warrant in everything you say. If your argument lacks a warrant, it's not an argument. I don't feel comfortable voting on things which I would be unable to explain to the opposing team as part of an RFD. Good logic > decontextualized quantitative evidence.

* Please, please weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more. Please explain explicitly how your arguments interact and do weighing that is good, nuanced, and makes sense within the context of the round. Quality > quantity.

* Rebuttal should answer turns on case and include weighing; generally I think that you should respond to offensive arguments in the next speech, case obviously excepted. You need to extend defense in every speech, conditional on your opponents' having answered it.

* If you want me to vote on something, it needs to be cleanly extended in both summary and final focus (i.e. link, warrant, impact, even for dropped arguments). Extend turns in first summary if you’re gonna hinge your whole round strat on it, basically. If I don’t know what I’m voting for, I’ll be sad and your speaks will suffer.

* Debating the way you want to debate and having fun is great, because otherwise there’s no reason for any of us to be here.

* I appreciate non-util framing and making arguments that you actually care about.

* If you feel comfortable, add your pronouns on tab.

Things I am Fine With:

* I am okay-ish with speed. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but if you want me to flow important analysis or author names you should slow down.

* I'm fine with theory which checks back for actual abuse and which is articulated more like a traditional PF argument (i.e. paragraph form, which I find much easier to evaluate. If you start spreading, I will have no idea what is going on). I don’t know a ton about theory/Ks/etc, so if you want to do this explain it clearly and a little slower than usual and you should be fine.

In the words of Harry Bagenstos: "I think it is probably possible to debate nontraditional PF arguments such that even an opponent who has no prior familiarity with the style can understand and make technically valid responses to them, and I think you should try to do that rather than presuming the existence of highly-developed theoretical principles imported from other events." In general, just debate how you want to debate, but make a good-faith effort to include your opponents.

Specific Things Which I Dislike:

* Bad evidence ethics. Good logic beats bad evidence. If you want me to call evidence, tell me.

* Card dumping with no warrants. Also, extensions with no warrants. Basically anything without warranting. If you don't warrant something, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

* Exclusion generally. Debate fails if it’s not accessible to everyone. If you’re spreading to make sure your opponents can't flow or reading arguments that exclude the other debaters in the round, I will not be happy. This also means that I am open to progressive arguments if they check back for this.

* Debaters not treating other debaters like real human beings. Joking around and being snarky is great, but anything blatantly offensive/ mean/ dismissive will get your speaks tanked and you possibly dropped. I debated as a female second speaker with a male partner and I encourage everyone—especially male debaters and those on all-male teams—to consider how "perceptual dominance" or humor can come across as demeaning.

* Co opting issues for a strategy. Care about the issue and make the debate productive for everyone. Consider content warnings and flexing contentions if someone objects--sensitive topics don't exist in a vacuum and can affect the people around you, so be conscious and you should be fine. IF YOU DO NOT READ A CONTENT WARNING ON A SENSITIVE ARGUMENT AND YOUR OPPONENTS OBJECT IN ANY WAY, I WILL DROP YOU. IF ARE RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, ABLEIST, ETC, I WILL DROP YOU. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPASSION FOR OTHER PEOPLE. If you don't know how to run a content warning, you can ask me before the round starts.

Things I Do Not Care About:

* What you’re wearing, how you're sitting, etc... Debate is stressful and you should be comfy.

1. dazzle me!
2. if you call me "your honor," i'll boost your speaks
3. if you flip first, i'll boost your speaks. you confident thang!
4. :)

Anything that doesn't violate the rules of PF or the rules of being a decent person is generally fine by me. If you don't have time to read this long paradigm, just ask in round!

Hi there! I am a former PF debater from Edgemont NY and graduated in 2020, and I currently attend Cornell University studying Industrial and Labor Relations. I'm a relatively traditional Northeast flow judge if that means anything to you (I am kinda flay but vote on the flow, big emphasis on warrants). Specifics:

- Don't be blippy because I'm not excellent at flowing and therefore might not catch something; I highly value good warrants. The less intuitive the argument, the more warranting is necessary

- I prefer you to have your camera on, if possible

- I'm tech > truth as long as there are warrants (however I will tell you if I think something is ridiculous, but it won't affect my decision)

- Bad strategic oopsies probably cap you at a 28.5

- I prefer you to speak at a pace where a speech doc shouldn't be necessary, my understanding of the round/ability to flow trades off with how fast you speak. The way you read your case/speech docs matters and contributes to your speaks

- I'm really really receptive to unconventional and creative arguments that are strategic and effectively run, high magnitude/low probability impacts are cool as well-- but use risk of offense weighing

- Also a really big fan of crafty & weird in-round strategy if executed well. I will reward with high speaks

- Terminalize all your impacts and extend all your warrants/the entire argument especially in the last speeches. Full warranting is essential to extensions-- literally pretend I've never heard the argument before.

- It's hard to vote off things I don't understand

- If your opponent's extension is bad, point it out or i will evaluate it

- Concede delinks in the speech right after to kick out of turns

- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline anything

- You can't delink yourself to kick out of turns if your opponents didn't read the delinks

- Offensive overview type stuff is fine in rebuttal if implicated in some way against the opponent's case

- I don't flow card names

- I may or may not pay attention in cross

- Defense is sticky through first summary (if unresponded to, terminal defense can be extended from rebuttal to first final focus. I think it's uneducational for debaters to win while extending through ink)

- Ten second grace period after time

- I don't have a very good understanding of progressive argumentation, nor am I very comfortable evaluating it. I'm unlikely to vote for theory unless there's abuse. ex: paraphrasing/not disclosing/the like do NOT qualify as abuse, but lack of content warning qualifies as abuse (please utilize content warnings). If anything, don't read a shell, just explain the abuse in paragraph form. I prefer substance debates, but if the round isn't that I'll do my best to evaluate everything fairly

- New weighing is fine in final focuses, but preferably earlier

- Weighing is only substantive to my ballot if it would actually sway a policy decision: ex: short circuit and magnitude weighing is substantive, "clarity of link," "timeframe," and certain theoretical "prerequisites" are not substantive unless justified to be substantive (this is a confusing point so please ask if you need clarification)

- Won't call for evidence unless asked to and my decision depends on it, and on that note, no evidence > bad evidence

- If there's no visible offense at the end of the round then I default to whoever lost the coin flip. Or, if I cannot find a way to vote on the flow I will vote with an arbitrary lay rfd, or vote for whoever I think debated better. That being said, while I intend to be tabula rasa, I will always try my best to resolve a muddled situation even if it requires some sort of minimal intervention. With that, I encourage risk of offense weighing when a situation is muddled!

- I generally have a pretty similar debate philosophy to my former coach Caspar

- Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm/decision/message me on facebook!

debate well and good luck! :))

Carmel Valley '21

Conflicts - Carmel Valley, Torrey Pines, Del Norte, Fremont

Add me to the chain - iainlaw10@gmail.com

*CAL RR* - Know nothing about the topic

Flip/preflow before round. Fast evidence exchanges. Postround. I don't flow anything over time or off docs. Speed is fine, clarity is key. Anyone can talk in cross. Read whatever you'd like.

Everything must be responded to in the next speech or its conceded, besides constructive

Weigh. Link comparison. Warrant comparison. I vote for the team with the strongest link into the strongest impact. I like voting on turns or DAs but they must be weighed and have impacts.

High threshold for extensions. Link and impact extension on any piece of offense in summary and FF.

If you want to concede defense to kick out of the turns, you MUST do it the speech right after the turns are read and must point out the specific piece of defense you concede/explain why it takes out the turn.

Competing interps/RVIs

"i think the longer judges take to come to a decision the more incorrect their ballot is"

- saikumar gantla

Carmel Valley/Canyon Crest '21; UCLA '25

Add me to the chain - syon.mansur@gmail.com

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

be nice to each other!

Tech > Truth

I'll vote on anything as long as its warranted (no racist/sexist/etc. args)

Any offense you go for should have a link and impact extended in both summary and final

Second rebuttal needs to answer all offense

Defense is sticky

You can kick out of turns by conceding defense in the speech after

Weigh/meta weigh

Speed is chill

I appreciate it when you send docs

Not super experienced with progressive argumentation but I'm comfortable voting on everything. Make sure to explain stuff well and flesh out your extensions.

i really hate when ppl make casual conversation like "how was ur day" during cross, especially grand cross. id rather you j take prep or skip it. also when people count "3 2 1" before giving their speech.

feel free to ask me about my own debate history! i love talking about myself :)

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

Specific to MSTOC '22

I have not been super involved in debate this year, meaning I've watched very few rounds and judged even fewer. I won't know much about the topic, especially early in the tournament-- make sure to explain well and explain acronyms/jargon. I also probably can't handle speed to the same level as before (though I doubt this will be an issue). Good luck and remember you're here to have fun!!

Conflicts: Carmel Valley, Canyon Crest, Pacific Trails, Del Mar Montessori

I would like to be entertained!

a haiku:

Probability

It is not real weighing

Please do not read it

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

Contacts if you have questions:

email: mxing1@swarthmore.edu

messenger: matthew.xing

READ COMPARATIVE WEIGHING AND I WILL GUARANTEE AT LEAST A 29.

Quick stuff:

-I debated PF for 4 years at Hunter (2016-2020) so I have a decent grasp of how to evaluate rounds. Tech>truth, tabula rasa, etc. etc.

-Putting this up here because I should be more clear about it. If you want me to vote on an argument, at the very minimum, you must have BOTH the warrant and impact in summary AND final focus.

-Warrants > cards. Don't just say "the IMF will implement austerity," tell me WHY they want/don't want to implement austerity.

-I'm not a fan of speed as a) I was never a particularly fast debater, b) I haven't debated in many months, and c) many "fast" teams in PF tend to read really blippy warranting. I've decided I probably won't evaluate speech docs barring tech issues/cutting out, if I can't hear you in round, it's not going on my flow.

-2nd rebuttal needs to address turns in 1st rebuttal. Disad spamming (especially if you label them as "turns") in 2nd rebuttal is very annoying and I don't think its particularly fair for the 1st speaking team. 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense, 2nd summary does.

-I don't flow cross but I'll listen to it. Bring any concessions made in cross up in a speech if you want me to evaluate them.

-I don't care if you cut cards or paraphrase evidence. However, if your evidence is grossly misrepresented/straight up fake, I will likely drop you immediately and possibly report you to tab (depending on the scale of the violation)

-Don't do the funny business where you underexplain an argument in an earlier speech hoping to confuse your opponents and then blow it up later in the round. If you didn't read a warrant in case, I sure as hell am not going to let you extend it into summary.

-I am ok with both teams skipping cross and taking prep instead.

-Time each other's speeches/prep.

-I'll always disclose the results of the round/give an RFD

-WEIGH. YOUR. ARGUMENTS. thank you!

Speaker Points:

-No speaker point incentives on virtual tournaments since there's no food. Speaker points are given based on how much I think your speech contributed to the flow, I don't really care how pretty your speech/rhetoric is. I'm a big fan of doing cool strategic stuff like collapsing on a double turn or reading 4 mins of impact turns and conceding links.

-Update for NSD Camp Tournament: Read comparative weighing and you will get 29+. Do not read comparative weighing and you will definitely not get above a 29.

Theory/Ks:

-I know how to evaluate pretty stock theory like disclosure/paraphrasing, etc. You can read this stuff if you want, but I don't particularly appreciate people reading theory in PF (you can pm me if you wanna find out why) so don't expect to win with high speaks if you win off theory.

-Don't like friv theory. Will probably give you the win and 20 speaks if you win with it.

-No clue how to evaluate Ks but I won't intervene against them. If you can explain to me why I should be voting off your K and you win it I'll happily vote for it.

-Do not be mean when you're reading theory/Ks!!! Make sure that the other team knows what your argument means so that they can actually engage with it. I will be very annoyed if you're clearly reading an obscure shell just to cop a free win on a team that's incapable of engaging. Paragraph theory is fine, you don't have to answer shells in shell format.