I'm a fourth year PF debater at Anderson high school. In a debate I like to see good clash and formal arguments in cross fire. I want to see the time used wisely and lots on information supporting your side in all of your speeches. You must weigh and explicitly tell me why I should vote for you. I will decide the winner of the round on who makes the most convincing argument and explains the logical reasoning on why I should vote for them and not their opponents. I will give speaker points based on cross fire, confidence, ability to make a good claim, warrant and impact, and professionalism.

Likes- Confidence, road maps, clash, good warranting, and weighing.

Dislikes- unwarranted claims, being unprofessional, not using all your speech times.

King Update:

Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech

I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

General:

L C Anderson '23, Emory '27

I competed in PF for 3 years on the national circuit

add me to the email chain: benjamincoleman05@gmail.com

tech > truth

do whatever u want as long as you’re not being a horrible person idc

go as fast as u want if you're clear enough but go MUCH slower if you're still paraphrasing for some reason

i’ll always disclose - postrounding is fine j be chill and not excessive.

SEND DOCS and if u cut out a lot of stuff send a marked doc after your speech. (a google doc does not count)

absent warrants otherwise, i presume first speaking team in pf

speaks will be good. i want u to break

Prefs Guide:

1: substance, esp if it’s fun / interesting / unique

1: T / non friv theory

2: most K (topic specific)

3: the same debate 6 rounds in a row

4: friv / tricks

5: performance

5: non-t aff

Specifics:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky

i won't evaluate new in the 2 and will attempt to protect first final if necessary

weighing is important but usually optional and i generally don't care as much as some other pf judges, u need to win the link to win the weighing

link weighing > impact weighing > no weighing

i don't care too much about extensions especially for conceded arguments but u obv still have to do it

impact turns are v fun but u should be extending your opponents link if going for them, if u don’t link i will be very sad :(

super blippy frontlining is impossible to flow especially if you're spreading so try to actually explain things. i have won rounds solely by doing this tho so obv it has its place, do it if u want just make sure i can flow it. also if u say things like "no warrant" i'm holding u to your response, u can't go up and explain why their warrant is false later

i don't flow cx, anything important should be brought up in speech but i do think cx is binding

if both teams agree i'm down to skip gcx for 1 min of prep (doesn't apply to novice pf or split panels)

Evidence + Ethics:

I don’t care about what your evidence says. I do care that both teams are able to engage with it.

if you insist on paraphrasing, at least be honest about it. own it. just fully paraphrase your case. be ready to debate theory though.

a case with 59 bracketed phrases including things like [for third-party moderation] and [unlawful activity] and “to p[reserve] profits” (yes i’ve actually seen this before) is paraphrased. a rhetoric doc with no cards anywhere to be found is paraphrased. i view those things as worse than paraphrasing because you’re being dishonest about it. please don’t lie.

taglines are not one word transitions like “currently” and “thus”, i can’t flow that. these kind of nitpicky things don’t matter as much when you’re going slower but if you’re spreading i need to be able to flow your arguments.

“rhetoric docs” are stupid and invite clipping bc your cuts usually don’t match the rhetoric. if u read off one of these i’m now requiring that u send both the doc you read from and the carded case to avoid things like this.

do not send me hyperlinks please i can’t look through that and neither can your opponents.

sorry for the rant. i’ve only ever given one team 25s and it was for doing everything i listed above in one round. if you insist on doing any of this PLEASE strike me.

Progressive Arguments:

my general rule of thumb is: if you're competing in varsity at a real circuit tournament, you should be able to handle progressive debate. anything else and you'll prob lose anyways bc you should get better at subs first

theory: default CI, no RVIs, spirit > text, DTD - read whatever shells you want, i'm very comfy evaluating

i won't inject my personal preferences in debate into theory rounds at all - while i do believe disclosure and cut cards are good, i'll vote for anything u can think of including args like theory bad

i really don’t like hearing debates about how small your school is especially if you have like 3 private coaches

IVIs are really stupid ESPECIALLY ev ethics IVIs, winning that is gonna be a massive uphill battle with me. shell format is nearly always better just bc most IVIs are super shifty and do not have explicit paradigm issues until the backhalf making them annoying to evaluate.

OCIs are good and circumvent the RVI debate

read theory immediately after the violation and answer your opponent's shell in the speech directly after it was read

u usually need a brightline for reasonability otherwise it can get tricky to evaluate but those args def have their place

I do not require trigger warnings. i will obv vote on a shell that says they’re good or bad but i do not think they improve debate in any way and are just used to exclude certain types of arguments. also it’s the real world triggering stuff happens j don’t be excessively graphic

K: fine just don't expect me to know your lit.

debate on the LBL, don't read 2 minute OVs and expect me to apply them everywhere on the flow.

don't spam jargon you don't understand because i likely won't either. if i can't explain smth back to you i won't vote on it.

this should be pretty obvious but don't paraphrase your k, u should also def be open sourcing these after they’re read bc they can get super unpredictable and shifty in pf

don’t spread random theory blocks off policy backfiles (u know who u are). idc if neg fiat is bad if they don’t fiat anything

i really like topic-specific k's like cap or sec with big stick impacts but anything is fine as long as u warrant it out. after judging enough shallow pf k rounds i’d like to say i’m a pretty good judge for them so do with that what u will.

Performance + Non-T Affs

prob don’t read these with me. most of u don’t know how to debate these in pf and will lose to t-fw bc you’re used to aff hacks and i am not one of them.

i also really don’t like to hear these bc a lot of pf teams kinda ignore the flow and get upset easily during these rounds when teams actually debate their arguments instead of conceding making them super painful to judge.

if u read a callout or smth at the beginning i will pretend to ignore it unless u try to garner offense off of it in which case i prob won't give it to u and you'll get 25 speaks. this is one of the few things i’m not completely tab on and i feel no shame about it.

if you want to read a k aff and think u can win, go ahead you can still obv pick up my ballot. if i enjoy the round i will be especially impressed.

to everybody: just have fun. i get it stressful rounds happen just try not to take it too seriously. after judging recently i realized i actually care a lot about how u guys do so i always put time into my decisions and love when teams ask me more questions after round. if you want any advice feel free to contact me whenever and i’ll be happy to help :)

I'm Zach Domsch a debater for LC Anderson

Topshelf:

tech>truth

conceded args are true

Run whatever you want unless its a K or CP (check below).

Speaks are 28-30; unless your being rude in cross or openly sexist, racist, etc

I don't like to intervene but might call for some cards

No sticky defense

2nd rebuttal must frontline turns

I'm good with speed, but if I can't understand what you are saying I'll clear you, and send a doc if your spreading

Summary and Final should be line by line and weighting

Framing

I default to util unless one teams reads a different mechanism; I'm always down for a framing debate

Theory

Good with most shells, disclosure, paraphrase, etc; just don't read it against novices or people who are new to the activity

Read this in constructive unless you find out later in the round that they violate. (Ex. you call for a card and its mega paraphrased, then read theory in rebuttal)

Make sure you can explain and extend the shell well, also give some prefiat weighting if you want me to vote on it

K

I have never run a K but I understand what the most basic K's are

Make sure to explain it super well, if not I'm just vote for the arg I understand more.

Not a big fan, also don't run on novices

Plans/CP

Don't like them, don't read unless you are super confidant

Weighting

Super important! I really like when teams read weighting OVs. Weighting will be the easiest way to my ballot

Evidence

Please don't paraphrase. Cut your cards don't just give links and say "Control F for this".

If your evidence is blatantly miscut, I will likely down you

Extensions

I need card name, warrant, why it matters/ links to another card.

If a link extension is blippy, I will be very unhappy if I have to vote for it

This is Dylan's but its all stuff I agree with

Speech by Speech

Overall do whatever you want but its probably better to be line by line til summary then collapsing into a more big picture FF but line by line throughout isn't really an issue as long as you weigh

Constructives - do whatever u want

1st Rebuttal - offensive OVs/DAs are cool, needs to respond to any framing, underviews or prefiat arguments from constructive

2nd Rebuttal - everything for 1st rebuttals goes for 2nd but any and all turns/terminal D are conceded if dropped in second rebuttal so its probably strategic to start collapsing if you are getting dumped

1st Summary - any mitigatory defense that 2nd rebuttal doesn't respond to is sticky but terminal D and turns need to be extended, first summary can frontline 2nd rebuttal w new args but thats the last time i should be hearing new arguments

2nd Summary - extend all defense, offense and weighing you want in 2nd Final Focus, otherwise im not voting on it

1st Final Focus - no new args here except weighing, everything else should have been in summary

2nd Final Focus - everything should have been in summary but plz do not put everything in summary into this speech

Disclose

I will usually disclose and give Oral RFD and will also type something up. Ask questions after round

Hi y'all! My name is Kaavya (she/her) and I graduated in 2024. I did PF for Anderson High School all 4 years of my highschool debate career.

Yes, I would love to be included in the email chain! My email is kaavyayal@gmail.com. This is also the best email to reach me if you have any questions after the round.

Tldr: Read the bold & underlined stuff

General:

1) +0.5 speaks if you bring me food

2) I don't care what you wear to round, I'm most likely showing up in sweats or a t-shirt and yoga pants

3)Speak slowly AND/OR send a speech doc to EVERYONE. I'm horrible with speed, so if you speak fast, send a doc and send it to EVERYONE so we can ALL follow along. There have been instances in my rounds where my opponents tried to send a doc to just the judge and not me or my partner. Don't be like that please. If your opponents aren't on the chain, then leave me out of it too.

4) I don't flow cross, I'm just getting my thoughts organized on my flow. If you brought something up in cross you want me to evaluate, then say it during a speech. But, I am still listening to cross, so please be respectful. I especially hate it when debaters are rude during cross and I will dock speaks accordingly.

5) Tech > truth I'll vote for pretty much anything y'all run, so read what you want EXCEPT for stuff any sort of discrimination good args (i.e. saying racism, sexism, homophobia, etc is good) or the patriarchy doesn't exist args.If the argument you're running might be triggering, I expect a trigger warning or it's an automatic L25.Speaking of, assume I don’t have topic knowledge, so please spell out any acronyms the first time you mention it so I know what you’re talking about.

6)Prog Args:

Novice PF: NO prog args in novice,or it's an L25. If you want to run prog args in novice, then LD or Policy might be your kind of vibe, but PF is not the right event to do that in.

Varsity PF:

FW: I'm fine with it.

Theory:Fine with theory. I'll evaluate pretty much whatever shell you read, but please make sure to have all the key parts of a shell and extend it like you would a regular arg. I don't expect you to extend the shell in rebuttal, but it MUST be in summary AND final focus for me to evaluate it.

Theory shells I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing, any sort of accessibility-related shells. BUT, PLEASE DON'T RUN THEORY IF IT'S OBVIOUS YOUR OPPONENTS ARE FRESH OUT OF NOVICE AND DON'T KNOW WHAT THEORY IS

Any other Prog args:My knowledge of prog args beyond FW and Theory is pretty limited, so run them at your own risk. I will evaluate literally anything as long as it's not harmful, so I'll believe anything you say if y'all do choose to run anything fancy.

7)Be nice!! I will dock speaks if you're rude, and yes this includes cross

8) Please please please give me an off-time road map before your speech starts and signpost as you go. In other words, tell me what order you're going to go in your speech (i.e. Aff, neg, weighing), and tell me in your speech when you are switching to a different argument. It doesn't have to be anything too fancy, but it helps me keep track of which arguments are responding to what.

9) Time your own speeches please. Speaking of which, please don't be that person that's really obnoxious about your opponents being overtime. I'd say that if they're 10 seconds overtime, then just hold of your stopwatch or something and if they keep going for more than 15 seconds, then just be like "Y'all, that's time" or something.

Speaks: Usually 29-30 unless you're rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. I'll try to leave detailed feedback in my balotts and give detailed oral RFD's as well

Speech by speech:

Constructive (no need for a roadmap here)- If you run stock arguments, you can go slightly fast, but make sure the contention names accurately reflect your argument so I know what the argument is. (i.e please don't call your arguments things like "smoking mirrors") If it's not a stock argument, plz go slow so I can understand it or at least send a doc.

Rebuttal: Please give me a roadmap (even if it's just "I'm going down their case"), but more importantly, signpost!! I can't emphasize enough how important signposting is!!

1st rebuttal: I don't care what you read here except for if it's novice, no prog arguments

2nd rebuttal: Make sure you frontline. I get it if you need to speak a little faster here, so send a speech doc and it should be fine

Summary:

General:

a) DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY!!! In other words, please extend your arguments, even if they weren't responded to, or else it will be considered dropped. On that note, if the argument you extend isn't responded to, PLEASE make sure you mention it

b) Weighing is super important, especially if both teams have similar impacts. I need to know why your argument is more important and why I should prefer your impacts over your opponents impact. Also, please give me some meta-weighing (explaining why one type of weighing is more important than the other) cause otherwise, idk which type of weighing to prioritize, which means I have to intervene, and there will definitely be some unhappy debaters

c)Please give me a road map and sign post , or I won’t be able to follow along. For the roadmap, please don’t say “my case, their case” just tell me which side your starting on (I.e aff, neg weighing)

1st Summary: This is arguably the hardest speech in the round cause there's a lot to cover, so I get it if you need to go fast. Just make sure you send a speech doc and please speak clearly.

2nd Summary: No new arguments or evidence here because that's unfair and abusive. If a team does this, please call them out in final focus cause I might miss it.

Final Focus:

1st Final: you don't have to extend everything from summary, but all the things that you do extend should have been in mentioned in summary. At this point in the round, absolutely no new arguments

2nd Final: Same thing as first final, and again don't bring up new stuff in second final focus, that's just cruel

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns! I would love to help! My email is at the top, but I'll include it here as well: kaavyayal@gmail.com

Hey! I've been debating on the Anderson debate team for the past 4 years, and have done PF all 4 years, World Schools for two years, and Extemp for 2 years as well.

For PF:

1. Please weigh! The phrase "we outweigh" does nothing unless you explain using weighing mechanisms.

2. Clear extensions, organization, and signposting is a must. Extend all parts of the argument in summary.

3. Be nice, there is a difference between being assertive and rude. :)

Email: layay03@gmail.com