I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Tabroom

Instagram

YouTube

Experience: Roughly a decade of debating and coaching.

I don't need an off-time road map beyond you telling me which side you're going to start on.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

Aff gets some reasonable amount of durable fiat, but they will need to justify any other fiat not explicitly made clear in the wording of the resolution.

The first round of card calling happens after 2nd constructive, not after the 1st constructive. Please feel free to tell the other team my paradigm says this.

I don't want to hear the vast majority of theory/progressive arguments in PF. I understand their value, and I read them in college. That said:

(a) there are already 2 other categories where you can easily make these arguments. There's zero good reason to bring it to the world of PF.

(b) at least 50% of the time I hear such arguments they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community.

(c) there are still ample ways to be progressive or read theory in a PF style. Example: Reading a blanket (topical) contention about US regime change as a way of critiquing whether or not we should withdraw our military presence in the middle east. Example: Reading an observation for why a certain interpretation of the resolution is the most fair in round, while appealing to the norms and standards of PF.

Kritiks are of course not ok, nor are new arguments in the Final Focus, etc.

I don't think that the 2nd speaking team has a requirement to frontline in the rebuttal, nor do I think every last drop of an argument has to be perfectly extended through every speech for it to be evaluated in the Final Focus. However, I think the 1st Final Focus is allowed to make responses to the 2nd summary, and they should have had extra time to weigh in the prior speeches anyway, meaning that their Final Focus is not particularly hurt. Further, if (and only if) no frontlining is done in the 2nd rebuttal, 1st speaking team's defense is sticky so long as it's extended in the 1st Final Focus following the 2nd summary's frontlines. All of this being said, I still advise the 2nd speaking team to pursue some frontlining earlier, as I will take into consideration the ability for a team to respond to an argument in time when weighing the link strength and probability of an argument.

I will vote down teams for egregious evidence violations. This is probably the most "hands-on" aspect of my judging paradigm; my standard is lower than the NSDA's rulebook. I don't need to think you're lying for me to consider it an evidence violation. Here's my test:

(a) Does your evidence clearly say something different from what you claimed?

(b) Is that difference significant, or minor? (Example of minor: You read a card that says Arms Races increase the chance of war three-fold, but the evidence [Rider '11 for anyone interested] is more specific to mature state rivalries that begin an arms race. Example of major: you claim the Rider '11 card says that giving aid to Ukraine increases the chance of nuclear escalation by 300%).

(c) Is it integral to my RFD on the flow? If no, I'll probably just chuck the argument. If yes to all of the above, there's a good chance I'll look for any way I possibly can to vote for your opponent. All of this said, I'm not going to go out of my way to find evidence violations. If I did that, I'd be awarding a lot of double losses :P

Please free to tell me to call for cards, including your own in the event of a dispute. I will read them.

Experience: Purdue University, 1 year of debating NFA-LD (essentially, progressive college one-person policy following nearly the same NSDA-LD format), 1 year of coaching NFA-LD, a few years of judging traditional LD and HS policy (some circuit, some trad).

Flowing everything includes flowing arguments about how one debater excluded the other. If there's a component of my judging that is not tabs, then it's definitely this. About 50% of the time I hear fringe K's or disclosure theory, it feels like they are used as bludgeoning tools to beat an opponent who simply doesn't know much about this side of the debate world or you found a cheap shot to take advantage of. As much as I enjoying "playing the game," I find this to be one of the more depressing aspects of the current state of our debate community. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to intervene, but...we all have biases. If you go for it, make sure you win it convincingly.

Similarly, I have recently become more "solidified", so to speak, in my opinions regarding the value of the style of intentionally technical, intentionally obtuse, and intentionally performative debate. To put that bluntly: I find most of the current K and games debate to be highly dubious in its educational value. AS a point of reference, if you watched the NDT 2023 Final Round, I found it to be a joke and an embarrassment to debate. I would be genuinely ashamed to show somebody not in debate that round. All of that said, and as hard as it may be to believe, don't construe this as me as a judge aiming to intervene or punish you for the choices you make in the debate. The only thing I dislike more than a totally gamified, pretend-philosophy 1NC is a judge who thinks their job is to be a debater. I will try very hard to avoid that. Put simply: I'll probably still vote for whatever the performative non-topical K is that you're winning, I'll just complain about it to myself later.

I have a BA in philosophy, so if you talk about a cool philosopher I'll be happy and can hopefully follow along pretty well.

Truth or tech: Truth and Tech :)

Spreading is fine, and paraphrasing is fine, but paraspreading (please credit me when you use this fantastic neologism/portmanteau) is a bad decision.

I am currently a senior in high school and this is my fourth year in Public Forum debate. I try to judge as I would want a judge to in my own personal round. With that being said, I'm judging on how well your arguments flow and the strength of them throughout. I try to judge completely unbiased, so during the debate, I will judge based only on the things I hear in that round. Therefore, if there is some sort of evidence or an argument you want me to know that needs to be said to me. Above all, I do ask that you keep good decorum, there is no need to be rude as it doesn't help your argument.

I'm looking forward to judging some good debates, good luck!

Hi,

Here are my expectations/paradigm for the round. 

- Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem super cool, but showing probability and a clear link chain will probably have a better chance of winning.

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise your rebuttal is a little too late. 

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason. 

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot.

- I'm all for taking control of CX/the round but if you are abusive/disrespectful in doing so it will reflect poorly on the ballot. Treat you opponents like human beings and we'll all have a good time. 

-In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down. If you wanna be Speed Racer go ahead as long as you feel a reasonable person can still understand you. 

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions later on last name will suffice).

-Tate 

Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.

Email: Alliefun9@gmail.com

Policy Debate:

Topicality: If you're going for t, make sure you're going for it, 5 minutes in the 2NR!

Kritiks: I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to specific kritiks besides Zupanchic and the Cap k, so make sure you can explain it well, and make sure to clearly explain the world of the alt and compare it to the world of the aff, an unclear alt is how most teams lose on the K! I'm also not very knowledgeable when it comes to framework, so explain you arguments clearly ex: why should the aff get to weigh their case/why does the neg hurt education and why is that bad for debate. Also, please don't give me 3 minute long overviews of the K using unclear jargon, a lot of that can be done on the line by line. (not the unlearn jargon part, make sure you can explain what that jargon means!)

Disads: Make sure you do impact calc! Disad outweighs and turns case is a powerful argument, make it every time.

Counterplans: I tend to lean neg on 50 state fiat and condo, but if the neg runs like 4 conditional CPs then don't let them get away with that! if you are making a perm, make sure to explain how the aff plan and CP can both be done, I'm not gonna vote on a vague "perm do both because we can/the is no reason we can't".

Public forum:

Never debated it :(, though I have judged it. Be clear and follow some cohesive order, since I'm not very privy to the mechanics it'll be in your best interest to signpost your arguments. Ethos Ethos Ethos! Be confident ;0 you are all dedicated debates, have confidence in you're skills! (even if you think you're losing, sound like you're winning!)

Hi everyone! My name is Emma Gavriliuc and I'm a junior at the University of Michigan (Go Blue!)

Yes, put me on the email chain: eagavriliuc@gmail.com

Experience:

I did PF for one year and am now an assistant coach for our middle school pf and policy teams. I've done policy for four years so I'm fine with speed and just about any argument, but if you're unclear I will not try to decipher your arguments for you. Clarity over speed always.

For Policy Debate:

Top-Level:

• I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates.
• Again, send me the docs. You have my email.
• Card quality and recency is huge - evidence quality in general is an important and valuable component
• Share docs with all parties, if it's a new aff I will still chalk non-shared docs up to the aff simply being bad.
• Generally against war-good arguments, I see very little persuasion and relevance. They're just not convincing
• Use Cross-X effectively and bring any arguments through to your speeches, I will not flow cross-x but its valid if it comes up in your speech later

How to sway me:

• Give me a clear picture and clear understanding of the world you are presenting
• Evidence quality is important - so is recency
• I enjoy and will be more persuaded by a slower debate with strong arguments and evidence. If you're faster, I can and will follow - but please
• The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction.
• If you laid a trap, tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.
• Have, utilize, and explain internal links!

What I don't like

• Word PICs - unless you genuinely think you can make me care and that it will change the course of the debate, I think these are just silly
• Negs that start with 9 + offcase positions, I prefer quality to quantity. It's, of course, fine to start with more than what you end with - but please don't just throw things out there for the sake of wasting time
• Offensive language - don't do it. Don't be rude to your partners, your opponents, or me. If you're rude or offensive, it will drastically impact your points and my perception as well. Just be nice
• No old camp blocks - I've seen them. Try not to use them. It won't lose you a round, but you can do better and the round will be better as a whole with your own blocks as well

Topicality:

• Be intentional with topicality. Make sure you have all components of topicality included in your shell. Make it relevant to the round and topic and please do flesh out any impacts associated
• That said, I like debates that have stories. I like debates about real topics with real clashing of arguments. Use topicality if you want, but not to the extent that the debate loses the essence of the topic at hand.

Critical affs:

• Is there a role of the ballot? Make that clear
• Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…
• A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments

Kritiks:

• Not a fan of high theory, but I'll listen to them
• Framework is huge - what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?
• Please please please be clear and consistent with what your alt is
• Perms are really persuasive to me - if you want to win against a perm be really careful with the arguments you're presenting and how you go about it on the neg. I tend to vote aff on perms but I do get excited by negs that respond well and can convince me otherwise

Disads

• Overviews on disads are good - please do include
• Focus on internal links here please

Counterplans

• Please have a specific and clearly described solvency advocate and solvency mechanism
• Consult and conditions counterplans are probably illegitimate - if you think you can convince me otherwise, please do give it a try

Theory/Rules:

• I guess they're fine but flesh the impact and value of these arguments

*

For Public Forum:

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. What you give me is what I will weigh.

I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that build a persuasive argument.

I can tell if you haven't listened to your opponents arguments so please do yourself a favor and actually flow.

I will be updating my paradigm frequently based on things that I do and do not want to see.

When Speaking:

- Be confident but don't be cocky

- Be clear

- Remember that you're trying to persuade ME not your opponents.

Do:

- Clash with each others arguments rather than simply reiterating your own points

- Extend the arguments that you are winning on

- Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments (evidence comparison makes me happy)

- Clearly explain to me how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument

- Defense is good, but don't overlook offense

- Organize your speech strategically please

- Tell me what your winning on and what your opponents have dropped as well - leverage these things

Don't:

- Say anything rude, offensive, insensitive, or derogatory - none of it will fly with me and it shouldn't fly with anyone else either

- Speak over opponents or your partner in round

- Just say that you won without proving to me why I should actually vote for you and why your arguments have won you the round

I look forward to watching you debate!

Current Undergraduate @ U of M

I debated for Groves High School for two years, as a novice and varsity debater. I spent that time doing policy on both the state and national circuits. I have read both policy, soft-left, and kritikal performance affs. This is my first time judging, so my paradigm is a little loose.

I haven't debated PF ever and do not have in-depth knowledge on this topic, don't assume I do.

Include me on the email chain: kevingruich@gmail.com

TL;DR - just do what you plan to do, I'm fine voting on things I personally disagree on, I only look to base my decision on the debate itself. I may not enjoy Ks a lot but that doesn't mean I can't weigh them, as long as it has a basis in evidence or reason it is good. I really do enjoy reasoned and logical analytics, I find these tailored arguments to be far more appealing than vomiting cards that no one really has a good understanding of. I also enjoy line-by-line debate far more than bloated overviews that just slide past each other. I just want to be told what to do, make persuasive arguments to me, I do not want to intervene and become the arbiter of fact.

In-depth Details:

Speed - You can have plenty of speed but don't assume I will have a perfect understanding of your argument because you muttered it, clarity is king, speed should come second, that doesn't mean I can't flow or didn't spread myself, just make sure you actually articulate your point comprehensibly (do not mutter under your breath or slur your words heavily, it makes a mockery of public speaking).

Topicality - I am willing to vote on T. You need actual reasons on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. Explain your standards, don't just toss buzzwords out assuming I understand it the same as you. Compare your standards and reasons to the other side, don't just ignore their arguments and move on.

CPs - I'll listen to any CP, any amount of them, I enjoy CPs since they often engage in topic-relevant policy. What constitutes abuse for a CP is always up for debate.

Disads - Gladly, I love a good DA, even if it is generic but there should be a clear link to the aff. It can be zero risk, whether or not that matters is up for debate. The overviews should focus on impact calculus and case turns. Don't spout a paragraph of the DA on the overview, let it be described in the line by line.

Kritiks - I enjoy "simple" Ks, I don't have the best understanding of high theory (though I do have good knowledge on some of them, Baudrillard included). A classic Cap K debate can be fun, though don't just put out generic blocks, make sure you have clear links and clear answers that apply to it. If you want to read a high theory K, explain it well, don't assume I'm read up on the literature (it is preferable you do this even if it is a standard K). The impact has to have actual calculus and not vague mentions of consequences, please compare it to the case so I don't have to. Alternatives need to be fleshed out and properly debated, what is it, how does it solve the aff, what is the world of it, who does it, what is my role in looking at it? I don't like vague alternatives, but I will vote on them if the Aff does nothing. Neg needs to be clear as to what comes first in their framing.

Theory - I don't lean one way or the other (aside from condo, you can get more than 1 single CP). On condo specifically, try to have a more nuanced interpretation rather than, "the exact amount of off-case they have is too much". A theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on the theory debate, I will definitely look there first. There should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise, I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance - I'll take a performance debate, not my preference, but I won't throw it out or anything. I would like it if the performative action relates to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am willing to listen to arguments regardless.

Paperless Debate - I will give the benefit of the doubt should a computer issue occur but I cannot give infinite time. I do not take prep time for flashing or emailing, but don't use this as an excuse to steal prep. I will be suspicious of you if I see you stealing prep (notably when a speaker is about to begin and prep is over) and it may result in the loss of speaker points if repeated blatantly.

Misc:

Line-by-line is key in evaluation, it matters far more than overviews

Clipping is cheating. You will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

EXT. VALLEY -- DAY A MYSTERIOUS WARRIOR treks across the rugged landscape. NARRATOR (V.O.) Legend tells of a legendary warrior whose Kung Fu skills were the stuff of legend. The warrior, his identity hidden beneath his flowing robe and wide-brimmed hat, gnaws on a staff of bamboo. NARRATOR (V.O.) (CONT'D) He traveled the land in search of worthy foes. CUT TO: INT. BAR The warrior sits at a table drinking tea and gnawing on his bamboo. The door BLASTS open. The MANCHU GANG rushes in and surrounds him. GANG BOSS (to warrior) I see you like to CHEW! (beat) Maybe you should chew on my FIST!! The Boss punches the table. NARRATOR (V.O.) The warrior said nothing for his mouth was full. Then, he swallowed. He swallows. NARRATOR (V.O.) (CONT'D) And then, he spoke. WARRIOR (dubbed hero voice) Enough talk. Let's FIGHT! SHASHABOOEY! WHAM! The warrior delivers a punch and the whole gang goes flying. NARRATOR (V.O.) He was so deadly in fact that his enemies would go blind from overexposure to pure awesomeness. 2. The gang members blindly flail about. NINJA CAT MY EYES! GATOR HE'S TOO AWESOME! ONLOOKERS swoon. SMITTEN BUNNY And ATTRACTIVE! GRATEFUL BUNNY How can we repay you?? WARRIOR There is no charge for awesomeness, or attractiveness. ONE HUNDRED ASSASSINS appear and surround the warrior. CUT TO: EXT. BAR - CONTINUOUS The entire bar swells, packed to the rafters with ninjas. WARRIOR KABLOOEY! CUT TO: EXT. BAR - CONTINUOUS The roof EXPLODES and a cloud of ninjas erupts into the sky. Like a tornado, the warrior spins and knocks them all down. NARRATOR (V.O.) It mattered not how many foes he faced. They were no match for his bodacity. The warrior beats up a thousand ninjas, delivering his final blow while doing a split between two trees. The warrior stands amongst a field of vanquished foes as god- rays shine down upon him. NARRATOR (V.O.) (CONT'D) Never before had a panda been so feared... and so loved. (MORE) 3. NARRATOR (V.O.) (CONT'D) Even the most heroic heroes in all of China, the Furious Five, bowed in respect to this great master. MONKEY We should hang out. WARRIOR Agreed. As the Five salute the warrior, he turns to see more bandits approaching. The Five strike an attack pose. The warrior brandishes a shiny green sword and leaps off the mountain into the sea of bandits. NARRATOR (V.O.) But hanging out would have to wait. `Cause when you're facing the ten thousand demons of Demon Mountain, there's only one thing that matters. And that's-- In mid air, the Five talk to the warrior in a strange voice. MONKEY Po! Get up! TIGRESS You'll be late for work! PO Whu? INT. PO'S ROOM - DAY Po lands hard on the floor. He tries to clear his head and wake up. PO'S DAD (O.S.) Po! Get up! We see his room is filled with various kung fu posters (including a poster featuring all of the Five) and souvenirs, and a wooden version of the Sword of Heroes (the green sword). Po SIGHS. He attempts to kick himself to his feet but alas, his belly is too worthy a foe. PO'S DAD (O.S.) (CONT'D) Po! What are you doing up there? 4. PO Uh, nothing! Po hops to his feet, imitating his Kung Fu action figures. PO (CONT'D) Monkey! Mantis! Crane! Viper! Tigress! Rowrrrr... OUTSIDE on the balcony of the neighboring house, a pig watering flowers stares at Po. Po tries to play it cool and then quickly ducks out of sight. PO'S DAD (O.S.) Po! Let's go! You're late for work! PO Coming! He takes a ninja star from his floor and chucks it at the wall. It bounces off. He throws the star again, but it bounces off again. He picks it up and heads downstairs. He trips and falls the rest of the way. INT. KITCHEN - DAY Po falls flat on his face on the kitchen floor. A panda- shaped shadow looms over Po. PO Sorry, Dad. PO'S DAD Sorry doesn't make the noodles. Reveal that the shadow is actually caused by a basket being carried by a small DUCK. This is PO'S DAD. Po gets to work, which is not easy since the kitchen's not really made for a panda his size. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) What were you doing up there? All that noise. PO Oh, nothing. Just had a crazy dream. He gets back to work. 5. PO'S DAD About what? PO Huh? PO'S DAD The dream. What were you dreaming about? PO What was I... eh, I was dreaming about uh... heh... Push in on Po -- is he going to admit his dream? He hides his throwing star behind his back. PO (CONT'D) Noodles. THOK. Dad stops chopping vegetables. PO'S DAD Noodles. You were really dreaming about noodles? PO Uh, yeah. What else would I be dreaming about? Po hands a noodle bowl to a customer, then realizes his throwing star is sitting in it. PO (CONT'D) (to customer) Careful, that soup is... sharp! PO'S DAD Oh, happy day! My son, finally having the noodle dream! He throws his arms around Po. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) You don't know how long I have been waiting for this moment. When Dad pulls out of the hug, Po is now wearing a noodle apron. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) This is a sign, Po! 6. Po looks at the apron nervously -- what has he gotten himself into? PO Uh...a sign of what? PO'S DAD You are almost ready to be entrusted with the secret ingredient of my "Secret Ingredient Soup." And then you will fulfill your destiny and take over the restaurant, just as I took it over from my father, who took it over from his father, who won it from a friend in a game of mahjong. PO Dad Dad Dad, it was just a dream. PO'S DAD No, it was the dream. We are noodle folk. Broth runs through our veins. PO But Dad, didn't you ever, I dunno, want to do something else? Something besides noodles? PO'S DAD Actually... Po looks surprised. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) When I was young and crazy... Dad gets a wistful look in his eyes. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) I thought about running away and learning how to make tofu. PO So why didn't you?! PO'S DAD Oh, because it was a stupid dream. Can you imagine, me making tofu? (laughs at the thought) No. We all have our place in this world. Mine is here. And yours is-- 7. PO I know. Is here. PO'S DAD No, it's at tables two, five, seven, and twelve. He loads Po's arms with bowls of soup. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) Service with a smile! A GONG sounds in the distance. Po looks out the window at the distant JADE PALACE. EXT. JADE PALACE - DAY SLAM ZOOM in towards Palace. End next to palace on an old red panda (SHIFU) playing a FLUTE. He is surrounded by the bushes and trees that nestle between the Palace buildings. Wider: We dolly around from behind the bushes. Stealthy dark shapes move in the foreground. Back on Shifu, still playing. He seems oblivious. Five figures explode from the undergrowth simultaneously, diving on Shifu. Shifu moves like lightning - the flute now wielded like a staff - he deflects, blocks, dodges, parries - the attackers go flying - They roll and pick themselves up, turning to face Shifu, who is now standing - poised - ready for their next move. SHIFU Well done, students... if you were trying to disappoint me. He uses his flute to correct the Five's technique. SHIFU (CONT'D) Tigress, you need more ferocity. Monkey, greater speed. Each of the Five bows respectfully as their name is mentioned. 8. SHIFU (CONT'D) Crane - height. Viper - subtlety. Mantis-- Shifu suddenly points the flute at a scared PALACE GOOSE. ZENG Master Shifu! SHIFU (impatiently) What?! ZENG (startled) Aah! It's Master Oogway. He wants to see you. Shifu looks up, concerned. INT. HALLWAY Shifu strides purposefully down the hallway, which is lined with palace geese. INT. SCROLL ROOM - DAY Candles, incense, and smoke fill the room. The door bursts open, the candles flicker. Shifu enters. SHIFU Master Oogway? You summoned me. He bows. Then looks up without unbowing. SHIFU (CONT'D) Is something wrong? Reveal Master Oogway... a wise, old tortoise. OOGWAY Why must something be wrong for me to want to see my old friend? SHIFU So... nothing's wrong? OOGWAY Well, I didn't say that. Shifu looks up, concerned. Oogway opens his mouth... and blows out a candle. And another candle. And another. 9. Finally, Shifu uses his Kung Fu to blow them all out. Oogway smiles knowingly. SHIFU You were saying? OOGWAY I have had a vision... Tai Lung will return. Shifu looks stricken. FLASHBACK - INT. SCROLL ROOM Quick, impressionistic images of Shifu battling a large, shadowy figure (Tai Lung). PRESENT - INT. SCROLL ROOM Shifu is rattled. He looks at the claw marks that still scar the wall and quickly looks away. But he regains his composure. SHIFU That is impossible. He is in prison. OOGWAY Nothing is impossible. Shifu makes a split decision. SHIFU Zeng! He comes flying in. Shifu gets in his face. SHIFU (CONT'D) Fly to Chogun Prison and tell them to double the guards, double their weapons. Double everything! Tai Lung does not leave that prison! ZENG Yes, Master Shifu. The goose flies off, but... SMACK! He hits a column. Then he is off. Back on Oogway, as he walks toward camera, away from Shifu. 10. OOGWAY One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it. SHIFU We have to do something. We can't just let him march on the valley, and take his revenge! He'll, he'll-- Oogway looks into the water of the moon pool. OOGWAY Your mind is like this water, my friend. When it is agitated, it becomes difficult to see. But if you allow it to settle, the answer becomes clear. Shifu and Oogway stare into the pool. Oogway settles the water, revealing the reflection of an intricately carved dragon clutching a SCROLL in its mouth. SHIFU The Dragon Scroll... OOGWAY It is time. SHIFU But who? Who is worthy to be trusted with the secret to limitless power? To become...the Dragon Warrior?! Dramatic music as we push in on Oogway's face. Then... OOGWAY I don't know. INT. NOODLE SHOP - DAY Po is serving customers, but has trouble squeezing between tables. PO Oop...sorry. ANGRY PATRON Hey! Watch it, Po! PO Sorry. Suck it up. 11. He sucks his belly in, but this causes his butt to interfere with a bunny family's meal. DISGUSTED PATRON Ugh! PO Oop! Sorry! A thousand pardons. A couple palace geese put up a poster on the wall and a palace pig hits a tiny gong. This gets Po's attention. He rushes up to the poster. PO (CONT'D) What?! Master Oogway's choosing the Dragon Warrior! Today! Customers jump up excitedly. PO (CONT'D) Everyone! Everyone! Go! Get to the Jade Palace! Po urges the villagers out the restaurant. PO (CONT'D) One of the Five is gonna get the Dragon Scroll! Customers rush to finish their food. PO (CONT'D) We've been waiting a thousand years for this! Just take the bowl! Other customers are finishing their soup. One old lady customer slowly counts out coins and puts them on the table. PO (CONT'D) This is the greatest day in Kung Fu history! Don't worry about it, just go! He starts to run. PO'S DAD Po! Where are you going? Po stops dead in his tracks, busted. PO To the...Jade Palace? 12. PO'S DAD But you're forgetting your noodle cart! The whole valley will be there, and you'll sell noodles to all of them. PO Selling noodles? But Dad, you know, I was kinda thinking maybe I... PO'S DAD Yeah? PO I was kinda thinking maybe I... PO'S DAD Uh huh? Po wants to say something to his dad, but he loses his nerve. PO ...Could also sell the bean buns. They are about to go bad. PO'S DAD That's my boy! I told you that dream was a sign! PO Yeah, ha ha, glad I had it. EXT. VALLEY SQUARE - DAY Throngs of Villagers are streaming into the arena. A couple BUNNY KIDS run by. BUNNY FAN #1 Yippee! BUNNY FAN #2 I'm a Kung Fu warrior! BUNNY FAN #1 Me too! Where's Po? PAN DOWN a long, long, long, long flight of stairs. Po stands at the bottom with his noodle cart, looking up at the daunting task before him. Po struggles to pull his noodle cart up the stairs. 13. The sun beats down on Po, but he presses forward. Climbing. Climbing. DISSOLVE TO: EXT. VALLEY SQUARE - LATER Po is still struggling up the stairs. PO Come on! Come on, ya-- Almost there... He stops, flopping onto his back to catch his breath. WIDEN TO REVEAL he's only made it up seven steps. PO (CONT'D) What? No! Oh No! Two Pigs pass by. KG SHAW Sorry, Po. JR SHAW We'll bring you back a souvenir. Po watches as they run up the stairs. His eyes narrow. This is his heroic moment. PO No. I'll bring me back a souvenir. Po tosses off his hat and apron and begins his ascent up the stairs. EXT. JADE PALACE - ARENA PLATFORM Oogway reaches the bottom of the palace stairs and a Palace Pig bangs a gong. SHIFU It is an historic day, isn't it, Master Oogway? OOGWAY Yes, and one I feared I would not live to see. Are your students ready? 14. SHIFU Yes, Master Oogway. OOGWAY Now know this, old friend. Whomever I choose will not only bring peace to the Valley, but also to you. As Shifu contemplates what this could mean, Oogway starts walking off. Shifu quickly joins Oogway as they head towards the roaring crowd below. The pig bangs the gong. ANNOUNCER Let the tournament begin! EXT. VALLEY SQUARE - DAY Throngs of Villagers are streaming into the arena. EXT. TOP OF STAIRS - DAY Po gasps for air as he hoists himself over the last step, laughing victoriously. PO (out of breath) Yeah! The doors to the palace arena begin to close. PO (CONT'D) Oh no! No no no! Wait! I'm coming! Po runs to the entrance and proceeds to bang on the door. PO (CONT'D) Hey! Open the door! DRUMS inside drown out Po's pounding. He yells. PO (CONT'D) Let me in! Inside, spectators' screams drown out Po's yelling. Po panics for a beat and then finds a window. He jumps and weakly struggles to pull himself up. Po struggles to peek through the window. 15. INT. PALACE ARENA - CONTINUOUS SHIFU Citizens of the Valley of Peace! It is my great honor to present to you... Tigress! Viper! Crane! Monkey! Mantis! The Furious Five! The Five jump into the middle of the ring. PO The Furious Five! Po manages a brief glimpse of the Five before a gust of wind knocks Po to the ground and shuts the window. SHIFU Warriors prepare! Po runs over to a crack in the wall. PO Peeky-hole! SHIFU Ready for battle! Inside the arena, Po catches a glimpse of Crane as he spreads his wings. PO Yeah! Woo! The Thousand Tongues of Fire! One of the spectators walks in front of Po, cutting off his view. PIG FAN Whoa! Look at that. PO Hey, get out of the way! Po backs up to get a better look at Crane in the sky and accidentally falls down the stairs. Po climbs back up and drops his head -- he missed it. MONTAGE: Po tries karate chopping the door open...to no avail. He slumps to the ground. 16. PO (CONT'D) Ow... Po attempts a pole vault, but falls on his back. The pole whips around and hits him into the arena wall. Po rigs a catapult, only to get clobbered by it. The crowd CHEERS. Po sits atop the stairs. Alone. SHIFU And finally...Master Tigress! Po snaps to attention. Po pulls on a rope tied to a tree. SHIFU (O.S.) (CONT'D) And believe me citizens, you have not seen anything yet! PO I KNOW!! SHIFU (O.S.) Master Tigress! Face Iron Ox and his Blades of Death! Tigress sets up to deliver her move. Po launches himself up above the fence, gets a peek at Tigress, then falls out of view just as she does her move. Po lands outside the arena in a fireworks tent. INT. TOURNAMENT RING - DAY Oogway senses something. He raises his hand and the crowd hushes. OOGWAY I sense the Dragon Warrior is among us. Shifu motions for the Five to gather in the center of the ring. SHIFU Citizens of the Valley of Peace! Master Oogway will now choose... the Dragon Warrior! 17. EXT. TOURNAMENT RING - DAY Po comes to. PO Huh? Oh no! Wait! He sees the fireworks and has an idea. PO (CONT'D) Yeah! INT. TOURNAMENT RING - DAY Oogway closes his eyes and raises his hand as ceremonial DRUMS start to play. EXT. TOURNAMENT RING - DAY Po struggles with something, his back turned to us. Reveal he has tied a load of fireworks to a chair. He hops on and lights the fuse. PO'S DAD (O.S.) Po?! Po's Dad rushes over and tries to blow out the fuse. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) What are you doing? PO What does it look like I'm doing? Stop! Stop! I'm going to see the Dragon Warrior! PO'S DAD But I don't understand. You finally had the noodle dream. Po looks uneasy. PO I lied. I don't dream about noodles, Dad! He looks at the fuse... almost all gone... Po holds onto the chair for dear life, closes his eyes, and braces himself for liftoff. PO (CONT'D) I love kung fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu- 18. Po finally opens his eyes... He's still on the ground. The fuse was a dud. Po falls face first into the dirt. He looks away, embarrassed. Po's Dad holds out his apron. PO'S DAD Come on, son. Let's get back to work. PO Okay. Po sighs, starts to reach for the apron, then-- BOOM! The rockets ignite, propelling Po into the stadium wall. PO'S DAD Oh! Come back! Po's rocket chair blasts him into the sky amid a shower of fireworks. CROWD Oooh! Aaahh! Po climbs up and up...until the rockets die out and the chair loses power... PO Uh oh... Oogway's arm sweeps down the line of the expectant Five... Po falls towards the center of the ring... The tension builds as the Five wait to see who will be picked. Then... SMASH! Po lands and kicks up a huge dirt cloud, obscuring the ring. INT. ARENA PO POV: He sees the Five looking down at him, appalled. Po comes round slowly, getting his bearings. He looks around and sees Oogway. Strangely, the old turtle is smiling. PO What's going on? Where...uh? What are you pointing--? He looks up. An awful realization starts to dawn. Po GULPS. He is desperately embarrassed. 19. PO (CONT'D) Oh. Okay. Sorry. I just wanted to see who the Dragon Warrior was. He tries to shuffle his butt out of there, mumbling apologies. OOGWAY How interesting. TIGRESS Master, are you pointing at...me? OOGWAY Him. PO Who--? Po tries moving out of the way of Oogway's finger, but it keeps following him. OOGWAY You. PO Me? Oogway grabs Po's hand and holds it up for all to see. OOGWAY The universe has brought us the Dragon Warrior! QUICK CUTS: PO What? FURIOUS FIVE What?? SHIFU What??? PO'S DAD WHAT???? The pig bangs the gong. The crowd goes wild! They cheer! They scream! Confetti falls! A palanquin is carried past Shifu. 20. SHIFU Stop! Wait! Who told you to--? Po stands there, utterly stunned, his mouth hanging open. He is abruptly lifted up out of shot. Cut to the Palace Geese straining. Po is being lifted with great effort on the palanquin. He is carried off. Shifu elbows his way urgently through the thronging crowd to get to Oogway. SHIFU (CONT'D) Master Oogway, wait! That flabby panda can't possibly be the answer to... our problem. You were about to point at Tigress. That thing fell in front of her. That was just an accident! OOGWAY There are no accidents. Oogway smiles benignly as we hear an off-screen CRASH! The camera adjusts to reveal the palanquin has collapsed under Po. Shifu looks at Oogway. Oogway just smiles. A squad of burly pigs rushes in and hoists Po, the palanquin, and the Geese onto their shoulders, and they head off for the Jade Palace. Stunned, Shifu watches them go. Behind him, the Five approach and bow. TIGRESS Forgive us, Master. We have failed you. Shifu spins around. SHIFU No. If the panda has not quit by morning, then I will have failed you. Confetti flutters through the air as the celebration continues around them. CUT TO: 21. EXT. PRISON -- NIGHT A huge prison is carved into the side of a frozen mountain. Fifteen stories of iron and rock. No windows. One door -- locked, bolted and sealed tight. Rhinoceros guards in armor patrol the perimeter. Zeng, the palace goose, flies into frame and a Rhino Sentry spots him in the distance. He lands, sliding on the ice and crashing into the gate. The rhinos point their spears at him. ZENG Wait wait wait! I bring a message from Master Shifu. CLANG! The doors creak open. The terrified goose peers in. CUT TO: INT. PRISON -- A MOMENT LATER COMMANDER What?!?! (reading) "Double the guard?! Extra precautions?! Your prison may not be adequate!" The Goose is quaking in fear. Stern Rhinos surround him, staring daggers at him. The Commander snaps the scroll shut. COMMANDER (CONT'D) You doubt my prison's security? ZENG Absolutely not. (then) Shifu does. I'm just the messenger. COMMANDER I'll give you a message for your Master Shifu. ON A BRIDGE COMMANDER Escape from Chogun Prison is impossible! The Goose is awed by the cavernous prison. 22. ZENG Whoa. The goose looks over the bridge's edge. The prison goes down a long ways. The commander hits the goose on the back. COMMANDER Impressive, isn't it? A feather from the goose drifts down the prison. ZENG Yes, very impressive. It's VERY impressive. COMMANDER One way in, one way out, one thousand guards, and one prisoner. ZENG Yes, except that prisoner is Tai Lung... AT THE ELEVATOR COMMANDER Take us down. Several guard rhinos winch the goose and the commander down. The commander grabs the chain and shakes the elevator, trying to scare the goose. ZENG What are you doing?! The commander just laughs. The elevator finally lands, sending an echo throughout the prison. AT DOORS - A number of doors unlock, one after the other. Finally, a drawbridge is lowered out onto an island. ZENG (CONT'D) Oh my... COMMANDER Behold, Tai Lung. ZENG I'll um...I'm just gonna wait right here. 23. COMMANDER It's nothing to worry about. It's perfectly safe. He shoves the goose out ahead of him. ZENG Oof! COMMANDER Crossbows! At the ready! ZENG Crossbows?! They approach TAI LUNG, a giant, muscular snow leopard bound in a giant piece of tortoise shell armor and chains. He barely registers signs of life. The commander walks right up to him. COMMANDER Hey, tough guy, did you hear? Oogway's finally gonna give someone the Dragon Scroll and it's not gonna be you! The goose can't believe it. ZENG What are you doing?! Don't get him mad. COMMANDER What's he gonna do about it? I've got him completely immobilized. The Commander stomps on Tai Lung's tail. We hear a crunch. The goose flinches. But Tai Lung does not react. COMMANDER (CONT'D) Awww. Did I step on the witty kitty's tail? Awww. Tai Lung doesn't move. His eyes stare coldly straight ahead. ZENG I'm good. I've seen enough. I'm gonna tell Shifu he's got nothing to worry about. COMMANDER No, he doesn't. 24. ZENG Okay, I'll tell him that. Can we please go now? The Commander starts to walk back to the elevator. The goose hurries after him. The goose's feather flutters into frame. We follow the feather as it lands right in front of Tai Lung. HIS EYES OPEN. Tai Lung grabs the feather with his tail. INT. JADE PALACE - HALLWAY The palace doors open to reveal Po on the palanquin, hundreds of villagers behind him. CROWD (chanting) Dragon Warrior! Dragon Warrior! Po is ushered in and the doors close. He is alone. He runs back to the closed palace doors. PO Wait a second! Hello? Uh...I think there's been a slight mistake. Everyone seems to think that I'm, uh... Po finally realizes where he is. PO (CONT'D) Whoa. The Sacred Hall of Warriors. No way! Would you look at this place! He rushes up to a display of armor. PO (CONT'D) (GASP) Master Flying Rhino's Armor! With authentic battle damage! He rushes up to a green sword, making sure not to touch it. PO (CONT'D) (GASP) The Sword of Heroes! Said to be so sharp you can cut yourself just by looking-- OW! He stares at a black sopt on the wall. 25. PO (CONT'D) (GASP) The Invisible Trident of Destiny!? He admires a painting. PO (CONT'D) (GASP) I've only seen paintings of that painting... Po runs around the room, amazed by all the ancient kung fu artifacts. Something special catches Po's eye. PO (CONT'D) (loudly) Nooo! Ohhhh! He runs over to it. PO (CONT'D) The legendary Urn of Whispering Warriors! Said to contain the souls of the entire Tenshu army. (calling into vase) Hellooo? SHIFU Have you finished sight-seeing? Po GASPS. PO (to vase) Sorry. I should've come to see you first. SHIFU My patience is wearing thin. PO (to vase) Oh. Well, I mean, it's not like you were going anywhere. SHIFU Would you turn around? PO Sure. Po turns and sees Shifu. 26. PO (CONT'D) Hey, how's it going? Po turns back to the vase. PO (CONT'D) (to vase) Now how do you get five thousand-- (cutting himself off) Master Shifu! Po bumps the vase which falls and BREAKS. PO (CONT'D) Someone...broke that. But I'm gonna fix it. Do you have some glue? The vase debris screams as Po tries to pick up the pieces. PO (CONT'D) Ow! Ooh. Splinter. Po fumbles around. Shifu looks irked. SHIFU So you're the legendary Dragon Warrior. Hmmm? PO Uh...I guess so? Shifu smiles and shakes his head. SHIFU Wrong! You are not the Dragon Warrior. You will never be the Dragon Warrior until you have learned the secret of the Dragon Scroll. He points to a dragon on the ceiling with a single scroll in its mouth. PO (in awe) Whoa. (then) So how does this work? You have a ladder or trampoline or...? SHIFU You think it's that easy? That I am just going to hand you the secret to limitless power? 27. PO No, I... SHIFU One must first master the highest level of kung fu. And that is clearly impossible if that one is someone like you. PO Someone like me? Shifu walks around Po - pointing out his weaknesses. SHIFU Yes. Look at you...this fat butt. Shifu HITS Po on the butt with his staff. SHIFU (CONT'D) Flabby arms... PO Those are sensitive in the flabby parts. Shifu SWATS Po on the arm with his staff. SHIFU And this ridiculous belly. Shifu HITS Po in the belly with his staff. PO Hey... SHIFU --and utter disregard for personal hygiene. PO (pointing at Shifu) Now wait a minute. That's a little uncalled-for. SHIFU Don't stand that close...I can smell your breath. PO Listen...Oogway said that I was the- Shifu pinches Po's outstretched digit. 28. PO (CONT'D) (gasp) The Wuxi Finger Hold?! Not the Wuxi Finger Hold! SHIFU (sly) Oh, you know this hold? PO DevelopedbyMasterWuxiInTheThirdDyna sty-- YES. SHIFU Oh, then you must know what happens when I flex my pinky. Po nervously eyes his finger locked in Shifu's grip and nods quickly. PO No no no! SHIFU You know the hardest part of this? The hardest part is cleaning up afterwards... PO Okay! Okay! Take it easy... SHIFU Now listen closely, panda. Oogway may have picked you, but when I'm through with you, I promise you, you're going to wish he hadn't. Are we clear? PO Yeah, we're clear. We're clear. We are so clear. SHIFU Good. I can't wait to get started. INT. TRAINING HALL The doors open, revealing Po nursing his wounded finger. Shifu steps out of the way and Po's face goes into shock. The Five are performing death-defying kung fu moves in the training hall. Tigress smashes a swinging, spiked ball of wood. ANGLE ON AN AWESTRUCK PO, as shards of wood blast into his face. Po is intimidated and overwhelmed. 29. Shifu scowls at Po. SHIFU Let's begin. He gestures to the gauntlet. Po's eyes go wide. PO Wait wait wait...What? Now? SHIFU Yes...now. Unless you think the great Oogway was wrong, and you are not the Dragon Warrior. PO Oh, okay. Well-- I don't know if I can do all of those moves. Shifu walks away and Po half-heartedly follows. SHIFU Well, if we don't try, we'll never know will we? PO Uh, yeah. It's just, maybe we can find something more suited to my level. SHIFU And what level is that? PO Well, ya know...I'm not a master, but uh, let's just start at zero, level zero. SHIFU There is no such thing as level zero. PO Hey! Maybe I can start with that. Po points at a rather friendly-looking dummy. SHIFU That? We use that for training children. And for propping the door open when it's hot. But if you insist... Relieved, Po turns to the dummy. The Five gather around him. 30. PO Whoa. The Furious Five. You're so much bigger than your action figures -- except for you, Mantis. You're about the same. Mantis gives him a look. SHIFU Go ahead, panda. Show us what you can do. PO Um, are they gonna watch? Or should I just wait until they get back to work or something... SHIFU Hit it. PO Ok. I mean, I just ate. So I'm still digesting... So my kung fu might not be as good as later on. SHIFU Just hit it. Po psyches himself up, doing some Jack Fu. PO Alright. Whatcha got? You got nothing cause I got it right here. You picking on my friends? Get ready to feel the thunder. I'm comin' at him with the crazy feet. Whatcha gonna do about my crazy feet? I'm a blur. I'm a blur. You never seen bear style, you only seen praying Mantis! OR... I could come at you Monkey style. OR... I'm comin' at ya snikity-snake. Shifu and the Five stare at Po, perplexed. SHIFU Would you hit it! PO Alright...alright. Po lightly hits the dummy and it rocks back into place. 31. SHIFU Why don't you try again? A little harder... Po punches it again, knocking it all the way backwards. He turns to Shifu, smug. PO How's tha-- WHAP! The dummy rights itself and smacks Po. Totally dazed, Po trips and stumbles his way through the obstacle course. The Five instinctively step forward to help Po, but Shifu holds up his hand to stop them. BACK ON PO PO (CONT'D) Ow, that hurts. A spiky tethered ball sends Po flying into the jade turtle exercise, where it rattles him around. SHIFU (to the Five) This'll be easier than I thought. Back to Po in the turtle bowl. PO Feeling a little nauseous. The turtle spills him out and he stumbles into the army of wooden dummies. PO (CONT'D) Ow, those are hard! Ooh! I think I... The last dummy whaps him in the crotch and everything becomes still. PO (CONT'D) Oooohoohoo...my tenders. He struggles to get on his feet, takes one step and reaches out to a dummy arm...and immediately gets pummeled all over again. Po comes out the other side battered and bruised and finds he is standing on the floor that shoots out bursts of flame. We see reflections of fire on the Five and Shifu as Po gets singed. He comes crawling into frame. 32. PO (CONT'D) How did I do? SHIFU There is now a level zero. CUT TO: EXT. BUNKHOUSE - NIGHT The Five are walking to the bunkhouse, which sits high on a hill. MANTIS There's no words. CRANE No denying that. VIPER I don't understand what Master Oogway was thinking. The poor guy's just gonna get himself killed. CRANE (mocking) He is so mighty! The Dragon Warrior fell out of the sky on a ball of fire. MANTIS When he walks, the very ground shakes! TIGRESS One would think that Master Oogway would choose someone who actually knew Kung Fu. CRANE Yeah, or could at least touch his toes. MONKEY Or even see his toes. As the others walk off, we reveal Po, who unbeknownst to them has been walking behind them this whole time, hearing everything. He attempts to look at his toes but just sees gut. He lifts up his stomach, leans forward... leans... leans... and falls over. 33. He gets up and watches them go inside. He sighs. INT. BUNKHOUSE Po peeks around the corner. PO Okay. He tip-toes into the hall. SQUEAK. The floorboards strain beneath him. SQUEAK. PO (CONT'D) (whispering) Great. Po takes a gentle step. CRE-E-E-A-AA--CHUNK! Po's foot goes through the floor. Po tries to recover. SQUEAK-SQUEAK-SQUEAK! THUNK! Po rolls his ankle and stumbles through a bedroom door. Crane is staring back at him. PO (CONT'D) Oh hey...hi. You're up. CRANE Am now. PO I was just uh... Some day huh? That kung fu stuff is hard work, right? Your biceps sore? Crane looks at his wing. CRANE Um...I've had a long and rather disappointing day, so uh...yeah, I should probably get to sleep now. PO Yeah yeah yeah, of course. CRANE (relieved) Okay, thanks. PO It's just...I'm such a big fan. 34. CRANE Oop. PO You guys were totally amazing at the Battle of Weeping River. Outnumbered a thousand to one, but you didn't stop, and then you just... HI-YAH! Po does a spastic series of Kung Fu moves. We hear a RIP, and reveal that he's kicked his foot through the paper wall. PO (CONT'D) Ooo, sorry about that. CRANE Look, you don't belong here. Po looks stung to be hearing this from one of his heroes. PO I know. I know. You're right. I just - my whole life I've dreamed of- Crane stops Po before he embarrasses himself even more. CRANE No no no... I meant you don't belong here. I mean, in this room. This is my room. Property of Crane. Po is mortified, but covers. PO Oh, okay. Right right. Yeah, you want to get to sleep. CRANE Yeah. PO I'm keepin' you up. We got big things tomorrow. Alright. You're awesome. Last thing I'm gonna say. Okay. Bye bye. Po shuts the door. Crane sighs. The door flies open. Po enters with an eager smile. PO (CONT'D) What was that? 35. CRANE I didn't say anything. PO Okay. Alright. Goodnight. Sleep well. Po backs out into the hall and closes the door. PO (CONT'D) Seemed a little bit awkward. Po turns and walks down the hall to find a vacant room. CREAK- CREAK. Tigress opens the door behind him. Po winces. PO (CONT'D) Master Tigress! Didn't mean to wake you. Just uh... TIGRESS You don't belong here. PO Uh, yeah, yeah. Of course. This is your room. TIGRESS I mean...you don't belong in the Jade Palace. You're a disgrace to Kung Fu, and if you have any respect for who we are and what we do, you will be gone by morning. She closes the door on Po, who slumps sadly. PO Big fan... EXT. JADE PALACE - NIGHT A dejected Po stands under a peach tree in the moonlight. Oogway approaches. OOGWAY I see you have found the Sacred Peach Tree of Heavenly Wisdom. Po spins around, his face dripping with peach juice. 36. PO (mouth full) Is that what this is? I am so sorry. I thought it was just a regular peach tree. OOGWAY I understand. You eat when you are upset. PO Upset? I'm not upset. What makes you think I'm upset? OOGWAY So why are you upset? Po sighs, there's no use trying to lie to Oogway. PO I probably sucked more today than anyone in the history of kung fu, in the history of China, in the history of sucking. OOGWAY Probably. PO And the Five... man, you should have seen them, they totally hate me. OOGWAY Totally. PO How's Shifu ever going to turn me into the Dragon Warrior? I mean, I'm not like The Five. I've got no claws, no wings, no venom. Even Mantis has those... (he imitates a mantis' front legs) ...thingies. Maybe I should just quit and go back to making noodles. OOGWAY Quit, don't quit. Noodles, don't noodles. Po looks confused. 37. OOGWAY (CONT'D) You are too concerned with what was and what will be. There is a saying: Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present. Oogway hits the tree with his staff as he walks away and a peach falls into Po's open hand. INT. PRISON -- NIGHT Using the goose's feather to pick the lock, Tai Lung BURSTS free from his armor. An ALARM RINGS OUT! The Commander runs to the ledge, the Goose right behind him. ZENG What's happening?! The Goose looks over the edge and sees Tai Lung at the bottom of the pit. Tai Lung struggles with his shackles. COMMANDER Fire Crossbows! Tai Lung uses the incoming spears to break his shackles and then manages to kick the spears back up into the walls, creating a makeshift staircase. ZENG Tai Lung is free! I must warn Shifu! The Commander shuts the Goose up. COMMANDER You're not going anywhere. And neither is he. ZENG Let go of me! COMMANDER (to guards) Bring it up! 38. The winch turns and the elevator starts to rise. A rhino guard tries to reach it, but just misses. RHINO GUARD #1 Wait! Bring it back! ZENG He's coming this way! COMMANDER He won't get far. (to guards) Archers! Leaping across the spears, Tai Lung catches the elevator as the volley of arrows flies down past him. The guards cut the rope and the elevator crashes back down to the bottom of the pit. Tai Lung swings up from the bottom of the elevator house and catches the guards by surprise. He grabs the chain and jumps over the edge and swings around, launching himself up to the next tier, disappearing into the shadows. Tai Lung lands on a bridge, fights his way through, finally reaching the top tier where the Commander and the rest of the Rhino army await. ZENG We're dead. So very, very dead. The Commander hushes the Goose. COMMANDER (to Goose) Heh heh...not yet we're not! Now! Archers set off charges on the ceiling. Massive stalactites crash down and the bridge begins to crumble. Tai Lung leaps across the crumbling debris and attempts one last huge jump towards the Commander. But he falls short, claws scraping and sparking against the rock wall. The Commander laughs maniacally. On his way down, Tai Lung looks up and sees a fuse burning down to the last group of explosives. He leaps across the raining debris up to the ceiling of the cavern. Grabbing a hold of the dynamite, Tai Lung falls and slings it ahead of him at the guards. ZENG Can we run now? 39. COMMANDER Yes. EXT. PRISON KA-THOOM! The door blasts open and Rhinos go flying everywhere. WHUMP. The Goose hits the ground. The commander's horn prosthetic falls in front of him. ZENG Nuuu... Urggg... Tai Lung picks up the Goose by the throat. ZENG (CONT'D) URRK! TAI LUNG I'm glad Shifu sent you. I was beginning to think I had been forgotten. With a creepy tenderness, Tai Lung smooths the Goose's ruffled feathers. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) Fly back there and tell them...the real Dragon Warrior is coming home. Tai Lung throws the Goose into the air and he flutters off. Lightning strikes. CUT TO: EXT. BUNKHOUSE - MORNING CLOSE-UP of a gong being struck. INT. BUNKHOUSE - CONTINUOUS Shifu enters the hallway of the bunkhouse. The Five burst out of their rooms and land, ready for inspection. FURIOUS FIVE Good morning master! One door remains closed. 40. SHIFU Panda! Panda, wake up! He slides open Po's door. The room is empty. SHIFU (CONT'D) (satisfied) Hmm. He's quit. EXT. TRAINING HALL - MOMENTS LATER Shifu walks with a bit more energy. VIPER What do we do now, Master? With the panda gone, who will be the Dragon Warrior? SHIFU All we can do is resume our training and trust that in time, the true Dragon Warrior will be revealed. INT. JADE PALACE - MOMENTS LATER Shifu enters the training hall, only to find himself face-to- face with Po's butt. Shifu and the Five are taken aback. SHIFU What are you doing here?! Reveal Po is in the middle of the floor, his legs spread wide apart. Po looks back over his shoulder to see Shifu and the Five enter the hall. PO Hey! Huh... Good morning, Master! I thought I'd warm up a little. SHIFU You're stuck. PO Stuck?! Whaa? Pfft... stuck... Yeah, I'm stuck. SHIFU (to Crane) Help him. Crane approaches Po. 41. CRANE Oh dear. Crane gingerly grabs Po's waistband and attempts to pull him up by flapping his wings. PO Maybe on three. One. Two- Crane pulls him up and Po flops onto his back. PO (CONT'D) Threeeee. Thank you. CRANE Don't mention it. PO No really, I appreci-- CRANE --EVER. SHIFU You actually thought you could learn to do a full split in one night? It takes years to develop one's flexibility and years longer to apply it in combat. Shifu flings two boards into the air. Instantly, Tigress leaps up and executes a perfect split kick. Po is awestruck. As Tigress lands, the broken chunks of board land all around Po, knocking him on the head. Po collects a piece of splintered board as a souvenir. Shifu notices and steps forward. SHIFU (CONT'D) Put that down! The only souvenirs we collect here are bloody knuckles and broken bones. PO Yeah, excellent! He laughs excitedly and salutes Shifu. SHIFU Let's get started. CUT TO: 42. MONTAGE Shifu snaps his fingers. Viper and Po face off. VIPER Are you ready? PO I was born ready-- Viper lashes her tail around Po's wrist, wrenches his arm back, flings him into the air and brings him crashing back down on his head. PO (CONT'D) Eaghhh... VIPER I'm sorry, brother! I thought you said you were ready! PO That was awesome! Let's go again. (salutes) Shifu snaps. Monkey twirls a bamboo staff. He lunges at Po who takes a comical beating. Shifu snaps. Po and Crane prepare to spar atop the turtle bowl. CRASH. Po falls in and is tossed around like a sack of soup. Shifu snaps. We see a series of shots of Po falling on his face at the hands of some invisible opponent, who turns out to be... Mantis. Shifu smiles. Flat on his back, Po manages a salute. Shifu has had it. SHIFU I've been taking it easy on you, panda, but no more! Your next opponent... will be me. Po looks excited. PO Alright! Let's go! 43. The Five exchange worried looks. SHIFU (to Po) Step forth. Po doesn't even finish the step as Shifu whirls him around and throws him to the floor pinning his arm behind him. SHIFU (CONT'D) The true path to victory is to find your opponent's weakness and make him suffer for it. PO (delighted) Oh, yeah! Shifu whips Po around again. SHIFU To take his strength and use it against him. Again, this time Shifu holds Po by the nose. SHIFU (CONT'D) --until he finally falls, or quits. Po is totally inspired. PO But a real warrior never quits. Don't worry, Master, I will never quit! At his breaking point, Shifu flings Po into the air and then leaps at him with a flying kick. CUT TO: EXT. TRAINING HALL - CONTINUOUS Po crashes out of the door and tumbles down the steps. The Five watch him fall. TIGRESS If he's smart, he won't come back up those steps. MONKEY But he will. 44. VIPER He's not gonna quit, is he? MANTIS He's not gonna quit bouncin', I'll tell ya that. Cut WIDE as Po continues to tumble. INT. BUNKHOUSE - EVENING Close on Po, who grimaces. PO (O.S.) Aaaoo...whoohoo...EEEee...hee- hee... I thought you said acupuncture would make me feel better. Mantis pops up from behind Po holding a handful of needles and sticks Po again. MANTIS Trust me, it will. It's just not easy finding the right nerve points under all this-- PO Fat? MANTIS Fur, I was gonna say fur. PO Sure you were. MANTIS Who am I to judge a warrior based on his size? I mean -- look at me. Po looks for Mantis... MANTIS (O.C.) (CONT'D) I'm over here. ...But Mantis is now on his other shoulder. He jabs another needle into Po. PO Ow! 45. VIPER Maybe you should take a look at this again. Viper is holding a diagram of acupuncture meridians (onto which someone has overlaid a drawing of a panda.) MANTIS (re: diagram) Oh! Okay. Quick cuts to Monkey meditating in his room and Crane doing calligraphy in his. Po's yelps distract them. PO Ow! Don't... (laughing) Stop it, stop-- Yow! I know Master Shifu's trying to inspire me and all, but if I didn't know any better, I'd say he was trying to get rid of me. Po chuckles. The others look at each other and chuckle awkwardly. MANTIS I know he can seem kind of heartless-- He violently jabs another needle in Po. MANTIS (CONT'D) But, ya know, he wasn't always like that. VIPER According to legend, there was once a time when Master Shifu actually used to smile. PO No. MANTIS Yes. Cut to Tigress out in the hallway. She can hear them talking. VIPER But that was before... PO Before what? 46. Tigress enters. TIGRESS Before Tai Lung. Crane's shadow is silhouetted on the wall. CRANE Uh yeah, we're not really supposed to talk about him. TIGRESS Well, if he's going to stay here, he should know. PO (trying to ease the tension) Guys, guys. I know about Tai Lung. Tigress turns to Po. PO (CONT'D) He was a student, the first ever to master the thousand... Tigress approaches Po and leans in towards him. PO (CONT'D) (nervously trailing off) ...scrolls of... kung fu... and... then he turned bad... and now he's in jail. Tigress shakes her head at the panda's ignorance. TIGRESS He wasn't just a student. DISSOLVE TO: EXT. TRAINING HALL FLASHBACK. Shifu peeks out of the Training Hall and finds a baby leopard cub on the steps. TIGRESS (V.O.) Shifu found him as a cub. And he raised him as a son. Baby Tai Lung pulls on Shifu's whiskers. 47. TIGRESS (V.O.) (CONT'D) ...and when the boy showed talent in Kung Fu... Baby Tai Lung punches the training dummy across the floor. TIGRESS (V.O.) (CONT'D) ...Shifu trained him. Shifu teaches Baby Tai Lung how to punch. TIGRESS (V.O.) (CONT'D) He believed in him. He told him he was destined for greatness. Hard cut to a full-grown Tai Lung demolishing a training dummy. TIGRESS (V.O.) (CONT'D) It was never enough for Tai Lung. He wanted the Dragon Scroll. But Oogway saw darkness in his heart and refused. Outraged, Tai Lung laid waste to the valley. He tried to take the scroll by force. And Shifu had to destroy what he had created. Tai Lung ransacks a village on his way up to the Jade Palace. He crashes through the doors, running towards a waiting Shifu and Oogway. Shifu leaps at Tai Lung to deliver a kick. TIGRESS (V.O.) (CONT'D) But how could he? Seeing only baby Tai Lung running towards him, Shifu pulls his kick short. Tai Lung counters with a devastating strike and Shifu crashes to the ground holding his broken leg. Tai Lung leaps for the scroll, but Oogway stops him with strikes at his pressure points. He falls to the ground in a heap. TIGRESS (V.O.) (CONT'D) Shifu loved Tai Lung like he'd never loved anyone before... Young Tigress in the training hall strikes the dummy in the same manner as Tai Lung. Shifu corrects her form. Nothing more. Young Tigress looks crestfallen. 48. TIGRESS (V.O.) (CONT'D) ...or since. The sad, young Tigress cross-dissolves to adult Tigress. INT. BUNKHOUSE - EVENING Everyone is quiet in the moment. TIGRESS And now he has a chance to make things right, to train the true Dragon Warrior. And he's stuck with you: a big, fat panda who treats it like a joke. Po makes a googly-eyed face. PO Doieeeee... TIGRESS (charging at Po) Oh! That is it! Mantis pops up and halts Tigress. MANTIS Wait! My fault! I accidentally tweaked his facial nerve. Po falls face first to the floor, revealing his back is covered with needles. MANTIS (CONT'D) And may have also stopped his heart. INT. TRAINING HALL - NIGHT Shifu is sitting in meditation, fidgeting incessantly. SHIFU Inner peace. Inner peace. Inner peace. He finally opens one eye. SHIFU (CONT'D) Would whoever is making that flapping sound, quiet down! 49. Satisfied with the silence, Shifu nods and resumes his meditation. SHIFU (CONT'D) Inner... BOOM. Zeng drops in from the ceiling. SHIFU (CONT'D) Oh, Zeng. Excellent. I could use some good news right now. ZENG Uh... CUT TO: EXT. JADE PALACE GROUNDS - EVENING Oogway stands under the peach tree, deep in thought. Shifu rushes in, emerging from the mist, extremely agitated. SHIFU Master! Master! OOGWAY Hmmm? SHIFU (out of breath) I have-- it's-- it's very bad news. OOGWAY Ah, Shifu. There is just news. There is no good or bad. SHIFU Master, your vision...your vision was right. Tai Lung has broken out of prison. He's on his way! OOGWAY That is bad news... He turns to face Shifu and stares at him, eyebrow raised. OOGWAY (CONT'D) ...If you do not believe that the Dragon Warrior can stop him. SHIFU The panda? Master, that panda is not the Dragon Warrior. (MORE) 50. SHIFU (CONT'D) He wasn't even meant to be here -- it was an accident! OOGWAY There are no accidents. SHIFU Yes, I know. You've said that already. Twice. OOGWAY Well, that was no accident either. SHIFU Thrice. OOGWAY My old friend, the panda will never fulfill his destiny, nor you yours, until you let go of the illusion of control. SHIFU Illusion? OOGWAY Yeah. Look at this tree, Shifu. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me, nor make it bear fruit before its time. SHIFU But there are things we can control. Shifu kicks the tree and a peach falls to his feet. SHIFU (CONT'D) I can control when the fruit will fall. A peach falls on his head and Oogway chuckles. Shifu tosses the peach in the air, leaps up, and splits it with a chop. SHIFU (CONT'D) And I can control-- Shifu punches the ground, creating a hole and places the seed in it. SHIFU (CONT'D) --where to plant the seed. That is no illusion, Master. 51. OOGWAY Ah, yes. But no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple, or an orange... but you will get a peach. SHIFU But a peach cannot defeat Tai Lung! OOGWAY Maybe it can. If you are willing to guide it, to nurture it. To believe in it. Oogway covers the seed with dirt. SHIFU But how? How? I need your help, Master. OOGWAY No, you just need to believe. Promise me, Shifu. Promise me you will believe. SHIFU I... I will try. Oogway smiles, then glances up at the sky, then back down to Shifu. OOGWAY Good. My time has come. You must continue your journey without me. He hands his staff to a confused Shifu. SHIFU What... what are you..? Oogway backs away into the swirling fog. SHIFU (CONT'D) Master, you can't leave me! The petals surround Oogway as he approaches the cliff's edge. OOGWAY You must believe. SHIFU Master! 52. Shifu runs after him. Oogway is engulfed by peach blossoms. As the winds settle, Shifu is revealed standing at the edge of a cliff. Oogway is gone. We pan across to the bunkhouse. PO (O.S.) ...So I'm like, fine, you may be a wolf, you may be the scariest bandit in Haijin Province... INT. KITCHEN -- NIGHT Reveal Po is cooking for the Five. He chops some veggies mid- air. PO ...but you're a lousy tipper. CRANE (incredulous) Really? So... how'd you get out of there alive? PO I mean, I didn't actually say that, but I thought it... in my mind. Po flips some bowls and expertly lines them up on his arm. He ladles soup into them. PO (CONT'D) (covering) If he... could read my mind, he'd have been like, "What?" (then) Order up! Po looks around expectantly and the Five (minus Tigress) dig in. PO (CONT'D) Hope you like it. MANTIS This is really good. PO (bashful) No, c'mon. (MORE) 53. PO (CONT'D) You should try my dad's secret ingredient soup. He actually knows the secret ingredient. VIPER What are you talking about? This is amazing. CRANE Wow, you're a really good cook. MANTIS I wish my mouth was bigger. The others laugh. But not Tigress. MONKEY Tigress, you gotta try this. Tigress looks up from her meal. TIGRESS It is said that the Dragon Warrior can survive for months at a time on nothing but the dew of a single gingko leaf and the energy of the universe. On the others for a beat. Then Po shrugs. PO I guess my body doesn't know it's the Dragon Warrior yet. I'm gonna need a lot more than dew. And, uh, universe juice. Po laughs. He picks up his bowl and takes a giant gulp. When he lowers the bowl, we see a noodle hanging from his face -- it looks like a moustache. Mantis snickers. PO (CONT'D) What? MANTIS Oh, nothing... Master Shifu! The rest start laughing. Po realizes he's wearing a noodle moustache. He plays it up. 54. PO (imitating Shifu) You will never be the Dragon Warrior, unless you lose five hundred pounds and brush your teeth! The Five LAUGH. PO (CONT'D) (imitating Shifu) What is that noise you're making? Laughter? I never heard of it! The Five keep LAUGHING. Po reaches over and grabs two empty bowls and holds them up like ears. PO (CONT'D) (imitating Shifu) Work hard, Panda. And maybe, someday... you will have ears like mine. As the rest of the Five laugh, Tigress sneaks a moment to smell Po's soup. Leaning towards the bowl, she suddenly looks up and stops. The Five also look up and stop laughing. Reveal Shifu has entered behind Po. He is holding Oogway's staff. PO (CONT'D) (normal) Ears. It's not working for you? I thought they were pretty good. Po looks at the stone-faced Five. Tigress jumps to her feet. MONKEY It's Shifu. PO Of course it's Shifu. What do you think I'm doing? He finally notices Shifu standing there, doing a slow burn. Embarrassed, he places the soup bowls on his chest like a bra. PO (CONT'D) Ooh! Master Shifu! Po slurps up the noodle moustache. Monkey can't help but snicker. 55. SHIFU You think this is funny? Tai Lung has escaped from prison and you're acting like children! PO What? SHIFU He is coming for the Dragon Scroll, and you are the only one who can stop him. The bowls fall off. A beat as this sinks in... then Po starts to laugh. PO And here I am saying you got no sense of humor. I'm gonna stop Tai... Shifu just stares at him, deadly serious. PO (CONT'D) What? You're serious? And I have to-- uh, Master Oogway will stop him! He did it before, he'll do it again. SHIFU Oogway cannot, not anymore. They notice Shifu holding Oogway's staff. They know what this means. They are saddened by the news. SHIFU (CONT'D) Our only hope is the Dragon Warrior. TIGRESS The panda? SHIFU Yes, the panda! TIGRESS Master, please. Let us stop Tai Lung. This is what you've trained us for. SHIFU No! It is not your destiny to defeat Tai Lung. It is his. He dramatically points at Po... but Po is gone. 56. SHIFU (CONT'D) Where'd he go? Shifu throws up his hands in frustration and heads after Po. CUT TO: EXT. BUNKHOUSE � DAY Super wide shot as Po runs away from the compound. Closer as he continues running. He checks over his shoulder, turns back... Shifu lands right in front of him. SHIFU You cannot leave! A real warrior never quits! PO Watch me! He tries to maneuver around Shifu, but is redirected back. PO (CONT'D) Come on! How am I supposed to beat Tai Lung? I can't even beat you to the stairs. SHIFU You will beat him because you are the Dragon Warrior! He pushes Po back with the staff. PO Ow! You don't believe that! You never believed that! From the first moment I got here, you've been trying to get rid of me. Shifu pokes him again, this time causing Po to fall on his back. SHIFU Yes. I was. But now I ask you to trust in your master as I have come to trust in mine. PO You're not my master. And I'm not the Dragon Warrior. Po shoves the staff away and gets up. 57. SHIFU Then why didn't you quit? You knew I was trying to get rid of you, and yet you stayed. PO Yeah, I stayed. I stayed because every time you threw a brick at my head or said I smelled, it hurt. But it could never hurt more than it did every day of my life just being me. Po looks down at the Valley, then turns back to Shifu. PO (CONT'D) I stayed because I thought if anyone could change me, could make me... not me, it was you. The greatest kung fu teacher in all of China. SHIFU But I can change you! I can turn you into the Dragon Warrior! And I will! PO C'mon, Tai Lung is on his way here right now. And even if it takes him a hundred years to get here, how are you gonna change this... (indicate belly) ...into the Dragon Warrior? How? How? How?! In frustration, Shifu yells out the answer. SHIFU I don't know!!! (then, resigned) I don't know. PO That's what I thought. Shifu walks away, leaving the path open to Po. EXT. JADE PALACE - NIGHT Tigress stands in the moonlight outside the palace. She has seen what just transpired between Shifu and Po. 58. She turns away, a look of resolve on her face... and LEAPS. She flies through the air, finally landing on a rooftop in the valley below. She looks back up at the palace. TIGRESS This is what you trained me for. She takes off running. The other four are right behind her. VIPER Tigress! She keeps going and they give chase. TIGRESS Don't try and stop me! The chase continues through the village. VIPER We're not trying to stop you! TIGRESS What? VIPER We're coming with you! Then...the others join her. Tigress smiles. They leap off into the night. EXT. JADE PALACE - EVENING Night dissolves to dawn. Shifu sits under the peach tree. He stirs, hearing KUNG FU NOISES from the training hall. He goes to investigate. CUT TO: INT. TRAINING HALL - DAWN Shifu looks inside -- it's empty. The NOISES continue from somewhere else -- the bunkhouse. CUT TO: 59. INT. KITCHEN - DAWN As Shifu turns the corner he sees Po's shadow as he performs some amazing Kung Fu. Entering the kitchen, Shifu finds Po is stuffing his face with food. Seeing Shifu, he stops mid-munch. In silence they eye each other. Shifu surveys the room -- broken lock, smashed doors, unhinged cabinets. Po belches. PO (mouth full) What? I eat when I'm upset, okay? Shifu gets a glimmer in his eye. He has an idea. SHIFU Oh, no need to explain. I just thought you might be Monkey -- he hides his almond cookies on the top shelf. Shifu calmly exits and hides just outside the doorway, waiting to see if his hunch is correct. KLUMP! KLONK! THUNK! Shifu peeks back inside and finds Po perched atop the high shelves jamming more cookies into his mouth. Po notices Shifu walking back in. PO (mouth full) Don't tell Monkey. He glances back down at Shifu, whose disbelief turns to a wise smile. SHIFU Look at you. PO Yeah, I know. I disgust you. SHIFU No no, I mean... how did you get up there? PO I don't know. I guess I-- I don't know. I was getting a cookie... He looks at the cookie and then can't help but eat it. 60. SHIFU And yet you are ten feet off the ground and have done a perfect split. PO No, this... this is just an accident. He and Po stare at each other for a beat. Then... WHOOMP! Po slips and crashes to the kitchen floor. A cookie rolls over to Shifu. He picks it up. SHIFU There are no accidents. Come with me. EXT. MOUNTAINS - DAWN Shifu leads Po through the mountains. PO I know you're trying to be all mystical and kung fu-y, but could you at least tell me where we're going? Shifu just continues walking. CUT TO: EXT. MOUNTAINS - LATER Shifu is sitting beneath a tree. Winded and wheezing, Po slowly works his way up the hill. Po sets his gear down and looks around. Shifu breathes in the morning mist as Po approaches. PO You dragged me all the way out here for a bath?! Po begins to pat his armpits with water. SHIFU Panda, we do not wash our pits in The Pool of Sacred Tears. Po quickly stops. Realizing. 61. PO (in awe) The pool of... SHIFU This is where Oogway unravelled the mysteries of harmony and focus. This is the birthplace of Kung Fu. The camera cranes up to reveal they are standing on rock shapes that resemble a yin yang symbol. As the camera pulls further out, it pulls back through a vision of Oogway doing Kung Fu moves. FLASH FRAME -- Shifu leaps atop one of the rocks and looks down at Po. SHIFU (CONT'D) Do you want to learn Kung Fu? PO (awestruck) Yeah... SHIFU Then I am your master! PO Okay! Tears of joy well up in Po's eyes. SHIFU Don't cry. PO Okay. Po sniffs the tears back and smiles. EXT. FIELD - LATER Shifu leads Po out into an open field. SHIFU When you focus on Kung Fu, when you concentrate...you stink. Po scowls. 62. SHIFU (CONT'D) But perhaps that is my fault. I cannot train you the way I have trained the Five. I now see that the way to get through to you is with this! Shifu produces a bowl of dumplings. PO Oh great, `cause I'm hungry. SHIFU Good. When you have been trained, you may eat. Let us begin. EXT. FIELD - LATER Po's training unfolds -- deep breathing exercises, balance tests, push ups, sit ups, climbing, etc. Through it all, he never gets to eat, although he does indeed learn kung fu. EXT. CLEARING - A MOMENT LATER Shifu sets a bowl of dumplings on a boulder. SHIFU After you, panda. Po stops short, suspicious. PO Just like that? No situps? No ten mile hike? SHIFU I vowed to train you... and you have been trained. You are free to eat. Po grabs one of the dumplings in his chopsticks. SHIFU (CONT'D) Enjoy. Po raises the dumpling to his mouth. WHOOSH! Shifu snatches the dumpling away and eats it himself. PO Hey! 63. SHIFU I said you are free to eat. Have a dumpling. Po reaches again as Shifu leaps across the table and kicks the dumpling into the air. PO Hey! Shifu eats it and Po scowls. SHIFU You are free to eat! PO (upset) Am I? SHIFU (challenging) Are you?! Po and Shifu ready their chopsticks. Po slams the table and sends the bowl of dumplings airborne. Back and forth, Po and Shifu spar, vying for the dumplings. Until there is only one left. Shifu tries every trick to keep the dumpling away from Po. He hides it underneath one of the bowls. He uses his chopsticks as weapons to smack Po's chopsticks away. He attacks Po with his bamboo staff. But Po skillfully manages to best Shifu for the final dumpling. Shifu smiles. Po has passed the final test. But then Po tosses the dumpling into Shifu's open hand. PO I'm not hungry... master. Master and pupil bow to each other. CUT TO: EXT. MOUNTAIN PASS The Five race toward a rope bridge stretched between mountain peaks. 64. Tai Lung appears at the other end of the bridge. He ROARS and races toward them. TIGRESS Cut it! The others slash at the ropes securing the bridge to the mountain. Tai Lung is almost upon them when Tigress cuts the final rope. But Tai Lung is too close -- Tigress must launch herself into him. The two cats end up in the middle of the bridge just as it starts to tumble into the canyon below. The Five grab support ropes and hold on for dear life. TAI LUNG Where's the Dragon Warrior? TIGRESS How do you know you're not looking at her? Tai Lung laughs. It echoes off the mountain walls. TAI LUNG You think I'm a fool? I know you're not the Dragon Warrior. None of you! The Five exchange quick, worried looks. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) (nodding confidently) I heard how he fell out of the sky on a ball of fire, that he's a warrior unlike anything the world has ever seen. The Five exchange quick, confused looks. MONKEY Po? TAI LUNG So that is his name -- Po. Finally, a worthy opponent. Our battle will be legendary! Tigress charges at him. The battle begins. Tigress punches Tai Lung as he hangs from the bridge. But Tai Lung counters with a maneuver that sends Tigress slamming backwards through the bridge's wooden slats. Then Tigress gets choked by the bridge's ropes. Monkey turns to Crane and Viper. MONKEY We've got this. Help her! 65. Viper grabs Tai Lung, which causes him to let go of the ropes. Tigress plummets down into the gorge... but Crane manages to catch her. Viper punches Tai Lung repeatedly with his own fist. Tai Lung manages to get a paw around Viper's "throat". VIPER Monkey! ANGLE ON MANTIS AND MONKEY. Mantis is straining to hold the rope by himself. MANTIS Go! (then) Ack! What was I thinking?! Monkey leaps into action, kicking Tai Lung in the chest and sending him crashing through the slats of the bridge. He gets back to his feet and starts running back to them on a single strand of rope. TIGRESS Mantis! Mantis whips his end of the rope, sending a sine wave shooting toward Tai Lung. The rope whips Tai Lung in the face and he gets tangled up. The Five see their chance. TIGRESS (CONT'D) Now! Working as a team, the Five kick Tai Lung's butt every which way. Tigress finally slashes the last rope holding up Tai Lung. He plummets down... down... disappearing into the mist. Mantis whips his end of the rope, returning his buddies safely to the mountain. The Five look relieved. But the relief is short-lived... Tigress notices that the other end of the bridge is circling the far mountain peak. Her eyes go wide with dread. The rope whips up. But Tai Lung isn't there. With a crash, he suddenly appears behind the Five. TAI LUNG Shifu taught you well... Tai Lung jabs a finger at Monkey, who instantly freezes. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) But he didn't teach you everything. 66. Tai lung lunges toward the rest. EXT. TRAINING HALL - EVENING Shifu and Po walk through the palace courtyard. Po has an easy spring in his step. SHIFU You have done well, Panda. PO Done well? Done well?! I've done awesome! He swings his belly around and knocks Shifu off balance. Shifu staggers back, regaining his dignity. SHIFU The mark of a true hero is humility! After a moment's thought, though, he leans toward Po - SHIFU (CONT'D) But yes...you have done awesome. And he punches him playfully on the arm. Po smiles at him. As they LAUGH, an indistinct figure appears in the clouds behind them. IT'S CRANE! Crane carries the five to the palace grounds, crashing in a heap. PO Huh? Guys? Guys! Po throws his backpack aside and runs over to them. PO (CONT'D) They're dead? No, they're breathing! They're asleep?! No, their eyes are open. Crane struggles to lift his head. CRANE We were no match for his nerve attack. His head collapses to the ground. 67. SHIFU He has gotten stronger. PO Who? Tai Lung? Stronger? Shifu starts freeing the Five. First Viper, then Mantis, then Monkey releases suddenly from his paralysis - MONKEY He's too fast! He delivers a Kung Fu punch to Po's head and then slowly realizes where he is. MONKEY (CONT'D) Sorry, Po. Shifu kneels before Tigress and works to free her. TIGRESS I thought we could stop him. SHIFU He could have killed you. MANTIS Why didn't he? SHIFU So you could come back here and strike fear into our hearts. But it won't work! PO Uh, it might, I mean, a little. I'm pretty scared. SHIFU You can defeat him, panda. PO Are you kidding? If they can't-- They're five masters. I'm just one me. SHIFU But you will have the one thing that no one else does. 68. INT. SCROLL ROOM - MOMENTS LATER CLOSE-UP of the Dragon Scroll. Po stares at Shifu - then looks up at the Scroll. Then back at Shifu - PO You really believe I'm ready? SHIFU You are, Po. They look at each other. This is a big moment. Oogway's staff hangs in a rack surrounded by candles. As Po and The Five stand by, Shifu carries the staff over to the reflecting pool. Shifu bows his head, then, eyes still closed, he raises the staff up above his head. Po and the others watch, expectantly. The peach blossom petals rise in a flickering, spinning cloud up from the pool. The gentle tornado rises up around the ceiling carving that holds the Dragon Scroll. The petals loosen the scroll from the dragon's mouth and it falls. At the last second, Shifu reaches out with the staff to catch the scroll on the end of it. He turns to Po, holding it out. SHIFU (CONT'D) Behold. The Dragon Scroll... It is yours. PO Wait, what happens when I read it? SHIFU No one knows, but legend says you will be able to hear a butterfly's wing-beat. PO Whoa! Really? That's cool. SHIFU Yes. And see light in the deepest cave. You will feel the universe in motion around you. PO Wow! Can I punch through walls? Can I do a quadruple back flip? Will I have invisibility-- SHIFU Focus. Focus. 69. PO Huh? Oh, yeah... yeah. SHIFU Read it, Po, and fulfill your destiny. Read it and become... the Dragon Warrior! PO Whooaa!!! Po takes a deep breath. Then he grasps the tube and tries to pull the top off it. It doesn't budge. He strains at it. PO (CONT'D) It's impossible to open. He strains again. He tries to bite it off... PO (CONT'D) Come on baby. Come on now... Shifu SIGHS and holds out his hand. Po passes him the tube. Shifu pops the end off effortlessly and passes it back to Po. PO (CONT'D) Thank you. I probably loosened it up for you though... Okay, here goes. He glances at the Five. They look on in awe. Monkey gives him the `thumbs up.' Po starts to unroll the scroll, the golden light bathing his face. Across the scroll we see Shifu, excited that he is witness to history... On Po's face as he finishes opening the scroll. Then - PO (CONT'D) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Shifu looks concerned. The Five look concerned. Po looks utterly terrified. PO (CONT'D) It's blank! SHIFU What? PO Here! Look! 70. Po tries to show Shifu the scroll. Shifu covers his eyes and turns his head away. SHIFU No! I am forbidden to look upon-- But he can't help himself. He takes a peek. Then he GRABS if off Po. He turns it around, then upside down. He closes it and opens it again, astonished. SHIFU (CONT'D) Blank? I don't...I don't understand. Shifu turns away, contemplative. What can this mean? PO Okay. So like, Oogway was just a crazy old turtle after all? SHIFU No. Oogway was wiser than us all. Po sits heavily on the floor, dejected. PO Oh, come on! Face it. He picked me by accident. Of course I'm not the Dragon Warrior. Who am I kidding? The Five don't argue. TIGRESS But who will stop Tai Lung? CRANE He'll destroy everything...and everyone. Shifu puts the scroll back in its container and seals it. He looks oddly calm as he turns around. SHIFU No, evacuate the Valley. You must protect the villagers from Tai Lung's rage. TIGRESS What about you master? SHIFU I will fight him. 71. PO What? SHIFU I can hold him off long enough for everyone to escape. PO But Shifu, he'll kill you. SHIFU Then I will finally have paid for my mistake. The Five and Po look devastated. SHIFU (CONT'D) Listen to me, all of you. It is time for you to continue your journey without me. I am very proud to have been your master. Shifu salutes them and turns away. Po is heartbroken. Crane steps forward and kindly puts a wing around Po, pulling away. Po resists for a moment, then lets the Five lead him off. CUT TO: EXT. VALLEY The Five arrive at the base of the stairs. TIGRESS We've got to get them out safely. Monkey picks up a small child. MONKEY Come, little one. Let's find your mama. TIGRESS Viper, gather the southern farmers. Mantis, the north. Crane, light the way. They split up and begin helping the villagers evacuate. Po is left by himself. He makes his way through the bustling town. 72. JR SHAW (skeptically) Look, it's the Dragon Warrior. Po approaches the Noodle Shop. PO Hey, Dad. PO'S DAD Po! Seeing Po, Po's Dad hurries over and wraps his arms around his son. Po bends down to reciprocate the hug, as Po's dad pulls away, having fastened an apron around Po's waist. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) Good to have you back, son! PO (listlessly) Good to be back. Po's Dad goes back to packing things up. PO'S DAD Let's go Po. So, for our next shop, it's time to face it -- the future of noodles is dice-cut vegetables, no longer slices. Dad starts to walk off, unaware that Po isn't following. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) Also, I was thinking, maybe this time we'll have a kitchen you can actually stand up in. Hmm? You like that? He turns and notices that Po hasn't moved. He walks to Po sympathetically. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) Po, I'm sorry things didn't work out. It just... wasn't meant to be. Po slumps against the cart. PO'S DAD (CONT'D) Po, forget everything else. Your destiny still awaits. We are noodle folk -- broth runs deep through our veins. 73. PO I don't know, Dad. Honestly, sometimes I can't believe I'm actually your son. Dad is taken aback. PO'S DAD Po, I think it's time I told you something I should have told you a long time ago... PO Okay. Dad pauses dramatically. PO'S DAD The secret ingredient of my secret ingredient soup! Po feigns excitement. PO Oh. PO'S DAD C'mere! The secret ingredient is... nothing! PO Huh? PO'S DAD You heard me. Nothing. There is no secret ingredient! PO Wait wait...it's just plain old noodle soup? You don't add some kind of special sauce or something? PO'S DAD Don't have to. To make something special, you just have to believe it's special. Po looks at his father with dawning realization. He picks up the Scroll. For a moment, Po stares at his reflection on the scroll, then he smiles serenely. He gets it now. 74. PO There is no secret ingredient... Po turns back to look at the palace. CUT TO: EXT. JADE PALACE - DAWN At the top of the stairs, Shifu looks upon the Valley, awaiting his fate. With a gust of wind, Tai Lung appears before him. TAI LUNG I have come home, Master. SHIFU This is no longer your home. And I am no longer your master. TAI LUNG Yes. You have a new favorite. So where is this...Po? Did I scare him off? SHIFU This battle is between you and me. TAI LUNG So. That is how it's going to be? SHIFU That is how it must be. They fight. At last. Tai Lung punches Shifu clean through the doors of the Jade Palace. Tai Lung enters. TAI LUNG I rotted in jail for twenty years because of your weakness! SHIFU Obeying your master is not weakness! TAI LUNG You knew I was the Dragon Warrior! You always knew... Dissolve to FLASHBACK. 75. A young Tai Lung looks expectant. Oogway shakes his head. TAI LUNG (V.O.) (CONT'D) But when Oogway said otherwise, what did you do? What did you do?! Tai Lung looks to Shifu who averts his eyes and the past dissolves into the present. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) NOTHING! Shifu takes a Kung Fu stance. SHIFU You were not meant to be the Dragon Warrior! That was not my fault! TAI LUNG NOT YOUR FAULT?! Enraged, Tai Lung knocks over the Kung Fu artifacts and throws them at Shifu. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) WHO FILLED MY HEAD WITH DREAMS?! WHO DROVE ME TO TRAIN UNTIL MY BONES CRACKED?! WHO DENIED ME MY DESTINY?! Shifu dodges each attack. SHIFU It was never my decision to make! Tai Lung pulls Oogway's staff from the shrine. TAI LUNG It is now. They fight. Tai Lung pins Shifu down with the staff. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) Give me the scroll! SHIFU I would rather die. They struggle for a beat until finally, the staff splinters into a hundred pieces. Shifu looks back at the pieces and a flutter of peach tree petals fly by. Caught off guard, Shifu gets kicked by Tai Lung into a column. 76. Shifu climbs the column to the rafters. Tai Lung follows and sends them both crashing through the roof. Lightning flash. Grappling in mid-air, Tai Lung gets his hands around Shifu's throat as they crash back through the roof. They kick apart. Shifu crashes to the floor and lands hard. Tai Lung bounces off the wall and throws a lantern to the floor. Flames go everywhere. Tai Lung's arms are aflame as he charges at Shifu. TAI LUNG All I ever did, I did to make you proud! Tell me how proud you are, Shifu! Tell me! TELL ME! THOOM! A fiery punch sends Shifu skidding across the floor and crashing against the reflecting pool. The flames extinguish and Tai Lung extends his claws. SHIFU (weakly) I have always been proud of you. From the first moment, I've been proud of you. And it was my pride that blinded me. I loved you too much to see what you were becoming. What I was turning you into. I'm... sorry. Tai Lung stops in his tracks. Shifu waits. Tai Lung's expression goes cold. He grabs Shifu by the throat. TAI LUNG I don't want your apology. I want my scroll! He holds Shifu up to the ceiling. Looking up, Tai Lung bristles when he sees the scroll is missing. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) WHAT? WHERE IS IT?! Tai Lung slams Shifu to the floor. SHIFU (weakly) Dragon Warrior has taken scroll halfway across China by now. You will never see that scroll, Tai Lung. Never. Never... 77. Tai Lung is furious. He roars, ready to strike Shifu. Suddenly... PO (O.S.) Hey! Tai Lung turns around to find Po standing in the doorway. PO (CONT'D) (out of breath) Stairs... Tai Lung casts Shifu aside. TAI LUNG Who are you? PO Buddy, I am the Dragon Warrior. (exhales hard) Huhhh... TAI LUNG You?! Him?! (to Shifu) He's a panda. (back to Po) You're a panda. What are you gonna do, big guy? Sit on me? PO Don't tempt me. Haha. No. I'm gonna use this. You want it? Come and get it. Po shows him the Dragon Scroll. From out of nowhere, Tai Lung appears and punches Po across the room, grabbing the scroll knocked from Po's hands. TAI LUNG Finally! Po bounces off a nearby pillar and slams back into Tai Lung, sending him flying into a column. Po puts on a brave face and strikes a pose as Tai Lung recovers and charges. Po turns to run. Tai Lung quickly catches up and they both sail off the Palace steps. Po clings to the scroll as Tai Lung delivers a kick and sends him crashing onto the theater rooftops below. 78. Po rolls down off a tree and uses the recoil to whip back and smash Tai Lung. He briefly skids across the rooftop and comes right back at Po. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) That scroll is mine! Down the Theater steps, Po and Tai Lung grapple for the scroll. Po is oblivious to the effects of crashing down stairs and in slow motion, his voluminous butt presses down on Tai Lung's head. As they crash through the Gateway the scroll is knocked loose. Tai Lung goes for the scroll but Po snatches it away using a noodle lasso. The scroll flies towards him and bounces off his head. Tai Lung leaps for it, but Po grabs his tail and pulls him back down onto a cart which see-saws Po into the air. In mid-air, Po slurps the noodle. Up and over the rooftops, Po lands in a grove of bamboo trees and into a nearby wok shop. The scroll rolls to a stop in the street. As Tai Lung makes his move on the scroll, Po turns the array of overturned woks into a shell game, sliding the woks around to hide the scroll. PO Lightning! Tai Lung knocks the woks away and exposes the scroll as Po uses his bamboo stilts to block Tai Lung. The leopard swipes out the stilts and brings Po down on top of him as the scroll rolls down the steps towards the river. Po gets thrown into a fireworks booth. As Tai Lung chases down the scroll, he turns back to see Po flying through the fireworks-filled sky. Po slams through Tai Lung and crashes into a rock wall. The scroll flies out of his hand and lands in the mouth of an ornamental rooftop dragon. He looks back at Tai Lung, who sees where the scroll has landed. Via the magic of cookie- vision, Po effortlessly scales the building. Tai Lung is shocked. TAI LUNG The scroll has given him power. (then) NOOO0!! He takes a giant leap and kicks the wall. The resulting shockwave collapses the building. 79. Amazingly, Po skips across the falling roof tiles to reach the scroll in mid-air as Tai Lung leaps up behind him and unleashes a punishing blow that sends Po smashing into the ground. As Tai Lung lands, he delivers a final devastating punch. As the dust settles, Tai Lung is looming over Po in the impact crater. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) (out of breath) Finally... oh yes... the power of the Dragon Scroll... is mine! Tai Lung grabs for the scroll and opens it. His face falls. TAI LUNG (CONT'D) It's NOTHING!! Po stirs. PO It's okay. I didn't get it the first time either. TAI LUNG (disbelief) What? Po gets to his feet. PO There is no secret ingredient. It's just you. Tai Lung snarls and lunges at Po. TAI LUNG RRRAAAH! PO AAAAGGGHH! Tai Lung attacks Po's nerve points. But Po begins giggling. PO (CONT'D) Stop! Stop it! I'm gonna pee! Don't! Don't! Tai Lung's nerve attack has no effect on Po. Frustrated, he delivers a double-fisted punch to Po's belly. 80. The shockwave ripples through Po's entire body and Po's arms come back and strike Tai Lung, sending the leopard crashing back into a building. Po looks at his hands, amazed at what he just did. Tai Lung rises from the rubble and runs at Po again. But Po strikes back, using an unorthodox panda-style technique, even getting Tai Lung to chomp down on his own tail. Po gives Tai Lung a butt bump that sends him crashing into a building. Tai Lung emerges and attempts one more lunge at Po. But Po prepares... and Tai Lung is swiftly met by Po's IRON BELLY! He is launched into the air. Po waits... and waits... until finally, Tai Lung appears in the sky and crashes to the ground. Tai Lung is battered, but still defiant. TAI LUNG (heavy breathing) You... can't defeat me. You're just a big, fat panda! SCHWING! Po grabs Tai Lung's finger. Tai Lung's eyes go wide. PO I'm not a big, fat panda. I'm the big, fat panda. Po's pinky pops up. Tai Lung gasps. TAI LUNG The Wuxi Finger Hold! PO Oh, you know this hold? TAI LUNG You're bluffing. You're bluffing! Shifu didn't teach you that. PO Nope. I figured it out. He flexes his pinky... PO (CONT'D) Skadoosh! KA-THOOM! 81. EXT. VALLEY OF PEACE A mushroom cloud appears over the Valley, sweeping past the Furious Five and the fleeing villagers. DISSOLVE TO: EXT. VALLEY SQUARE - A LITTLE LATER Villagers emerge from hiding. Po walks out from the mist looking very much like the warrior from the opening dream. KG SHAW Look! The Dragon Warrior. As he nears, we see that his hat is an upside down wok and his scarf is a torn apron. Villagers CHEER the Dragon Warrior. Po's Dad emerges from the crowd. PO'S DAD That's my boy. That big, lovely kung fu warrior is my son! PO Thanks, Dad. Po hugs his dad. The wok falls off Po's head and rolls on the ground until Mantis appears in frame and stops it. The rest of the Five are with him. Po takes notice. PO (CONT'D) Hey, guys. TIGRESS Master. Tigress bows deeply. The others follow. FURIOUS FIVE Master. PO (modest) Master? (then, remembering) Master Shifu! Po races toward the Jade Palace. He climbs the steps. Then more steps. 82. INT. PALACE - MOMENTS LATER Po arrives breathless at the Jade Palace. Shifu is still lying in the scroll room, his eyes closed. Po rushes to his side. PO Master! Shifu! Shifu! Are you okay? Shifu weakly opens his eyes. SHIFU Po! You're alive! (then, darkly) Or we're both dead. PO No, Master, I didn't die. I defeated Tai Lung! SHIFU You did?! Shifu smiles and shakes his head in disbelief. SHIFU (CONT'D) Wow. It is as Oogway foretold -- You are the Dragon Warrior. You have brought peace to this Valley. And to me. Thank you. Thank you, Po. Thank you... Shifu closes his eyes. He is still. Po starts freaking out. PO No! Master! No No No! Don't die, Shifu. Please... SHIFU (eyes snapping open) I'm not dying, you idiot-- ah, Dragon Warrior. I'm simply at peace. Finally. PO Oh. So, um, I should...stop talking? SHIFU If you can. Po nods reverently as Shifu closes his eyes again. Master and pupil lie next to each other. The camera pulls up and back away from them. Po tries to remain still, but it's hard. 83. He's about to say something, but he stops himself. He fidgets for a beat, then can't control himself any longer. PO Want to get something to eat? SHIFU (sighs) Yeah. IRIS OUT. THE END

pronouns: they/them

I am a very lay judge as this is my first tournament judging ever. Please be slow and clear - and have fun! Please ask me any questions before the round.

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

Experience

As of now, I run and coach a decently successful national circuit prep group -- feel free to ask me about it :)

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu (Umich'25, go blue!)

General/TLDR

Top: pretty experienced tech -- have evaluated basically everything. Adam, not "judge."

Yes K (both pre & post), yes theory, no excessive speed (usually good for like ~250 wpm with docs I think but anything further and I'll be cooked). Swearing is fine, just don't be egregious w/it.

PF judging is in a rough spot right now -- I frequently see bad judges get away with hilariously terrible decisions, even in elims and bid rounds (many of my 2-1s are blatant parent screws lol). I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen to you.

I thus encourage debaters to use my rounds to do/practice things that they can't do in front of other judges -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory etc etc) so long as you aren't spreading (>250 wpm) through them. My camera will usually be off as it helps me flow better.

This paradigm is purposefully blippy as I recognize that, more often than not, paradigms aren't read in full prior to round. If you have any burning questions, ask!

Make a Garfield or Babytron reference for +0.5 speaks!

Specs

• Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably rebuttal docs with all ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.

• I really like good rounds and really hate bad rounds. Generally, “good” teams will be diligent about the LBL, give good OVs, signpost extremely well, and extend the right pieces of big picture offense/defense -- write my ballot for me. I tend to reward debaters for tricky responses, but that is not to say that you should be blipping out 15 incoherent analytics per minute. Remember to extend your warrants as a way of resolving clash!

• K is chill, but only if you’re good at it – I haven’t been convinced that PFers can debate K like they can theory or substance quite yet. I can follow most reps Ks and many prefiat/performance ones. Similarly, I feel comfortable evaluating the responses to Ks (T-FW, TVA, SSD, ballot pik, perm etc). I can't follow phil.

• DISCLAIMER: apparently I borderline hack for perfcons. I think they usually outweigh the ivi/shell/K and it is tough to convince me otherwise unless you're reading unfairness good.

• Theory is cool! I like to think I’m a decent judge for it who has seen or evaluated most shells. Feel free to pref me if you read stuff like disclo, paraphrasing, speed, or any wacky non-friv (tbh, you can read friv, j be willing to commit to it). Don't spread through your shell. Going for 1-2 standards is usually better than blipping out 5 in final. The only part of theory that bores me is the bottom half (CI, RVI, etc). Obv, disclo is good and para is bad. But, I've voted for disclo bad and para good. Writing "contact info is term defense" on your wiki is silly and almost always unpersuasive and wrong.

• T is a voter. Debated equally vs. a Kaff, it'll probably win. I'm pretty receptive to TVA and SSD on a truth level -- not sure how I feel about the ballot PIK. My views on debating vs. alts are the same as my views on debating vs. impacts: both of them deserve more analysis and defense/offense. Procedural fairness probably o/w most impacts absent a great explanation of how the performance does something tangible and why that round specifically is k2 something important. I'll vote on fairness impact turns.

• Egregious speed is bad -- assume I can follow 65-70% of your top pace. The back half should be slower than the front half. Not sure how I feel about new ev in second sum.

• Cheating is bad. I will do my best to ensure that the 2FF doesn't get away with murder. Have cut cards ready to send ASAP -- I won't accept hyperlinks. You have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal. DAs in rebuttal are obviously fine. (and probably underutilized if you can explain why the DA o/w their link).

• A lot of "turns" in PF are just DAs. If your turn isn't responsive to the actual link and instead says that the aff/neg does something tangential which makes their impact worse, you need to spend way more time weighing the turn against their link. If the turn IS responsive, you need to do a little less of that.

• Defense is kinda sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard, BUT that does not mean you don’t have to say “extend the mining NL” for me to flow it.

• A quick tip: if you're spending 30s/speech on it while they're spending 2m/speech, they're probably winning it.

• Debate in a way that allows fun for everyone.
  
  

Me in a nut-shell: I debated for four years at Michigan State University from 2008-2012. I coached at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) from 2012-2014. After that, I went and got my PhD in Communication Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). I coached at Marquette off and on while at UWM. Now, I am an Assistant Professor at Texas State University.

Update Texas 2020: I have not judged on the space topic, so my familiarity with the topic (and accompanying communal norms/beliefs) is likely *very* poor. I will work very hard to follow your arguments, but you will likely need to spend more time explaining them.

The Basics:

I have judged off and on for the past few years--not as much as I used to. I usually flow on pen and paper, so you might want to slow down a tad for theory, topicality, long tags.

Less is more -- one of the most common comments I make at the end of the round is "I think you tried to too many arguments and did not develop them"

Assumption-centered debate is bad. Do not assume I know or understand your argument; do not assume I know or understand how your argument interacts with other arguments in the debate. Explain it, substantiate it, defend it. Classic example: "this was answered in the overview" -- my typical thought, "how so?"

Technical concessions significantly affect my decisions. Even if the "thesis" of your position answers an argument, you should be explicit about how it does. I will likely think you dropped something if you overuse implicit clash.

Defense matters, but offense is critical. Another common theme in my decisions is "I thought you did an excellent job playing defense to 'x,' but you did not really extend your offense." This has been especially true in the framework and topicality debates that I judged in the past.

Paperless – I’ll stop prep when the jump drive is out of your computer.

Mark cards as you read them.

If someone is caught cheating (clipping cards/fabricating evidence), that person will receive zero speaker points and the team that the person was on will receive a loss. If you make a challenge, have evidence (recording). I will stop the round once a challenge is started.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and ableist language and arguments lower speaker points and can result in a loss. Please, just don't.

Case Debate: Yes, please. Impact defense has its place, but I would hope you would have more to say on the case.

Disads: Yes, please. I did a lot of politics work back in the day, and I still follow politics very closely. Winning uniqueness doesn’t mean that you have won a link. Winning a link doesn’t mean that the DA is unique. If you go for a disad and the case, note that I have historically voted affirmative on try-or-die (if the conditions for try-or-die are actually present). The negative should have some sort (even if it is minimal) of harms related defense or explicitly set up another way for me to evaluate impacts in the 2NR. Conversely, I find it very difficult to vote aff if they do not respond well to DA solves or turns the case.

Counterplans: Reject the argument, not the team is my default for all theory arguments besides status of the counterplan questions. Having said that, I still think the negative needs to flow, notice theory arguments, and say RANT.

I’m fairly affirmative on a lot of competition questions (ie certainty counterplans). Lately, I have found that more teams need to be willing to at least introduce the permutation to do the counterplan in the debate. Although, I certainly have voted for these counterplans in the past and will likely continue to do so.

I usually default to not kicking the counterplan for the negative if the negative does not explicitly say that I have this option in a speech or in cross-examination.

Conditionality: I’m pretty neg if there is only one conditional counterplan. I would say that I am neutral with two conditional counterplans. Three or more, I am pretty aff.

Critiques: In most judging pools, there are usually a good number of judges who are better for the critique than me. Have I voted on the critique? Yes. Am I as familiar with most critique literature as other judges? Likely not, and I feel like I lean aff in a lot of nexus questions involved in these debates.

Obviously, the more specific the critique to the plan, the better. When I vote for the critique, it is usually because the negative as done a lot of specific link work and/or a solid job of extending "the tricks" (alt solves the case, ethics first, root cause) and the affirmation has done a comparatively poor job of responding to those tricks or challenging the alternative. The affirmative is typically a good spot if they (1) don't forget about their aff, (2) challenge the alternative, and (3) respond to "the tricks."

I am a poor judge for positions based on the view that suffering or death are good or are inevitable. I am also a poor judge for Baudrillard and friends.

No-Plan Affs: I generally enter a debate thinking that it will involve a discussion of a plan, and I have much more experience judging debates that center on plans. Have I voted for affs without a plan against framework? Yes, a few times. Have I voted for framework against a aff without a plan? Yes, a few more times.

I usually find topicality/framework arguments persuasive, especially if they emphasize the benefits of research and switch-side debate on a predictable and stable status point. If you decide against reading a plan, you are better served defending why that choice is good instead of solely arguing why topicality/framework is bad. The more concrete the advocacy of the 1AC the better. The clearer the tie to the topic the better. When I have voted for no-plan affs, the aff did an excellent job justifying their aff and used their aff well to link or impact turn the negative's position. The easiest way for teams advancing topicality/framework to lose is by forgetting their impacts or failing to respond to an impact-turn of their position. In the debates that I have judged involving no-plan affs, the teams that did the best job framing and articulating a metaphor for what debate is generally did better (examples: "debate is a game," "debate is a training ground for activism," "debate is an educational activity where we can explore and develop views of the world and how it works"). I will say this: I am better for affs without plans that focus on exclusion/marginalization in society and/or debate than I am for high theory Ks (either on the aff or neg).

Topicality: If the aff is at the core of the topic and literature, I am pretty good for the aff against a contrived T interpretations. That said, on large topics, I can be persuaded that a limited vision of the topic is necessary, especially when one's interpretation is supported with strong evidence.

If you still have any questions, please ask before the round starts OR email me at josh.h.miller08@gmail.com. If I can tell that you enjoy debating, I will probably enjoy judging the debate.

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

Hello! I am a parent with limited judging experience. In short, I will vote for whomever does the best debating. Please explain your arguments clearly and be wary of acronyms. Try not to make general statements without reasoning and/or evidence. I appreciate evidence, but think that good, logical analytics are amazing.

Some preferences:

• Speed kills. If I can’t understand what you’re saying (without a speech doc) then I can’t give you credit, even if it’s an amazing argument. Moreover, I can safely assume the opposite side has missed it as well and won’t penalize them if they drop it. I value quality of arguments over quantity.

• I am a parent judge, so if you want to read theory, you need to do a lot of explaining what the abuse is and why it is bad - I won’t vote on potential abuse. Don’t throw around buzzwords, and have clear explanations.

• Please flow and signpost - make it easy for me to keep track of your arguments and give you credit. I judge based on the arguments that I can follow.

• Your summary and final focus should clearly and concisely explain to me why you won: emphasize your most important arguments and extend any arguments you want me to consider. Please frame your impact and explain why yours is more important.

• I think crossfire concessions are valid factors to weigh in the debate but you have to bring it up in the speeches. I love good, strategic cross examinations, and reward good questioning with better speaker points.

• Have fun.

I debated all throughout high school, so I am very familiar with the mechanics of PF debate. Here is what I ask of you in each round:

1. Be kind and polite to your competitors. Being rude will affect speaker points, and in some extreme cases, the outcome of the round.

2. Talk at a pace that is reasonable to everyone in the round. I can flow speed and will clear you if you are just going too fast, but if I think that you are using speed as a tool to make the round inaccessible to your competitors, that may affect speaker points/outcome of the round.

3. Provide a clear explanation of why you should be winning the round. This will help you to be more sure of the outcome of the round. If you leave me to weigh impacts or compare frameworks, you are giving me a lot of control over the outcome of the round.

4. Provide evidence in a clear and accessible manner. I am totally fine with "Author Name, Year" citations (and in fact, I think this is how you should always cite after the first time you mention the card), but make sure that your citations are consistent and accurate. I will not ask for evidence at the end of the round (unless there is some major disagreement about what the card actually says in the round) because I feel that this is the responsibility of the debaters.

--If evidence is requested by your opponents, you must produce it in 90 seconds, or it will eat into your prep time. When reviewing evidence, that is your prep time. If I think you are using evidence request as a means to steal prep time, I will call you out and it will be reflected in your speaker points.

5. CrossX is a time for asking and answering questions. If I think that you are abusing the purpose of CrossX to respond to your opponent's answers, I will interrupt you. If it continues, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

6. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Debate is an excellent learning opportunity, and if there is anything that I can do to make it more educational, just let me know. I am always available via email: rmreilly@umich.edu.

Thank you! Good luck!

I'm healed now run it all back

Please put me on the e-mail chain: peanutdebater@gmail.com

**Highschool peeps: I've been told by my coach friends, my debaters, and students I've judged that I come off mean in RFDs because of how blunt I am. I don't mean to be rude or anything like that but if that seems like I am, it's most likely not you.

***Well done*** Naruto references get you speaker point boosts.

Background

Greetings Comrades, I debated four years of varsity debate in high school at East Kentwood competing nationally and then debated for five years at Wayne State. Now I'm a grad assistant at Baylor. I have been almost exclusively a K debater. Some of the areas include anti-blackness, settler colonialism, cap, Edelman, and Chicanx arguments but I also have read and coached policy arguments so throw em at me. (Random impact turns like bootlicking China).

The Topic:

College: Oh wow nukes can't wait to hear all the same impacts from the last five years.

High School: BIG MOOONEY

In round:

Evidence sharing and disclosure is good. Do it.

As of this moment I am not evaluating anything out of round unless I see it or you have physical proof (screenshot, recording) that your opponents did something violent messed up etc. I'm not gonna play detective again nor am I going to make value judgements on peoples sincerity or honesty.

Tag teaming is okay but I'd rather it kept to a minimum or zero.

Did you read a? Did you skip b? What cards did you read? Are cross ex questions I will enforce that time on a one judge panel. Don't like it? Get good at flowing, sorry but I'm not sorry, like at all.

Don't be oppressive or violent in the round, don't say that mess we are too old for that. If you do I'll let the other team roast you in their speech if they want to dunk and gain speaker points, if they don't take the opportunity to do it I will do it post round including lower speaks and an L.

I've noticed now more that I am an expressive judge so you will often know how I feel about something in the debate. So do with that as you will.

I've started to hate large overviews because honestly most of that work can/should be done on the line by line portion of the debate. I am also personally fine with the 1AR or block foregoing and overview and just tear up the opponents arguments directly.

More hostility in debate. Like why are we treating bad or silly arguments and the people that run them as serious. This isn't like be mean and call people names, but like you just called their epistemology racist and you're friends or cordial with someone reading that racist stuff? That's weird... Enter the room with that mamba mentality, that's all.

***Online Debates. I would love and prefer your cameras on at all times as I think it checks back cheating, helps me see you and allows you to use non-verbal's to persuade me and absent that build a sense of community and friendship :). If you can't or it's important to your argument and/or have another reason for not using a camera I get it, just my preference.

Args

If you have a fringe argument that some deem as silly, funny, goofy, weird, and/or obscure read that ish I like weird impact turns and all kinds of funky DAs. Spark, rouge AI, aliens, or whatever have fun.

I think post-rounding is silly because debate is communicative and if you failed to articulate your round winning argument then I’m sorry but I’m not going to go crying to tab changing the result. But waste our time if you really feel that way I won't think about the round ever again likely so no clue what you want to be the result of it. I've only had this problem once twice thrice so let's keep it that way.

If I wanted to hear just the truth I'd go to therapy. In other words the tech on the flow matters

Perms need a deeper explanation than you just rambling off four perms in hopes that the neg drops one it likely won't be developed enough by the 1AR/2AR to get my ballot

Aff

Aff has the burden of proof, prove a change is needed or what you do is the change + is good. Neg has the burden of rejoinder respond any way you want. Lots of times I feel that I vote neg because I lose sight of what the aff does as the 1AC slowly decomposes into nothing-ness at the end of the round. Explain what your aff does, why you are doing it, and how. Neg people don’t let affs shine light on their arguments and you have a hot shot at getting a win or a presumption ballot at the least.

T

First slow down on the violation, standards, and voters people blaze through it at top speed please relax let me flow it, damn. I feel like well done policy affs vs. T debates are some of my favorite but also could be really really generic and mid debates. So don't be boring. The impact level needs to come down to what specific abuse or education loss happened not something abstract.

FW

Borrowing from Pirates of the Caribbean, "The [Resolution] is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules."

Aff teams should prove a reasonable way, form, and or model of engagement or have significant impact turns to the neg arguments, I'm not convinced by some generic bs like "policy bad" we can do better y'all. Neg teams not gonna hold you IDGAF about fairness in the abstract. You need to prove the specific abuse in the round not just some lofty fairness claims. You need to contextualize your offense to the specific aff you debate and if you can do that you'll most likely be good absent something external in the round.

K Affs

Rez connection is appreciated and desired although not mandatory ig, please make sure you have thought through why you have completely rejected it. If you are just gonna say debate bad but have no other juice aside from that why we here?

Theory

So I've come around and like a good theory debate so go for it. I'm most open to disclosure theory, condo in a world of 4+ off (i.e. time skew claims and ability to generate offense on the net benefits). I also will flow on paper so like depth over breath for me. Y'all really need to levy perf-con against teams that read Ks and then have some policy defense/args. In a world of two perf con policy CPs I'll lean more neg flex but in a world of K v Policy stuff it shows bad K debating and I lean aff.

D.A.’s

TBH not a fan of most politics DAs because they seem boring and repetitive. If I had a dollar for every time something was supposed to shift a vote or election I would have more money than Bezos so you either need really good specific link evidence or you should read something else. If you decide to read a new disad in the block make sure you have a warrant as to why you did.

CP’s

Make sure you outline the net benefit pretty please? However, how much fiat the teams want to grant the CP will be up to y’all. I love a tricky PIC but don't love 4 plank long counterplans.

The K

Real world impacts are good and are grounded in more reality thus I feel are easier to believe than most. In addition to the arguments I mentioned in my background I dappled with a broad range of other arguments but that does not mean I'm neck deep in all the literature of everything so explain. Going for alt? Explain how it solves the links. No alt? Fine K’s can also function as disads without alts and be a reason to not do the aff but you will have to win how the aff increases said bad thing not just they use the state. In general I think the state link is probably the weak “link” of k links, see what I did there ;). I’d rather you contextualize your argument to the aff. Or to win the K you need a good FW/epistemology connection so make sure to have that if you aren't going the material route.

Ummmm... why ain't we fiating alts around here we really letting the policy crew have a monopoly on the tools of imagination?

**HS in particular: Please don’t be like “He’s a K debater so reading the K is how we win” If you would like feedback I can probably provide that for you as an educational opportunity but don’t read it just for the sake of it. I don’t like buns K debates and if you think you have that FW or DA fire instead just read that.

Zachary Rich

Affiliation: Wayne State University

Long story short - I like debates where there is clash on both sides. Give me a road map and follow it. Please be sure to signpost so that I know on which flow I am looking/writing. Give me the line-by-line and tell me when your opponent has dropped an argument. If you are rude to me, I can let it go pretty easily. If you are rude to the other team, I will get upset. If you are rude to your partner, I will be livid.

Spreading is fine as long as you are sure to enunciate important parts of arguments and do not lose your clarity. I will give one verbal warning per person throughout the debate, but that is it.

Topicality - T is always a voter, but only if there is a good argument on it or it is dropped by the AFF. If you are just throwing out a T argument for funsies and to waste the AFF's time, I will not like that.

BTW - no voters read = no vote on T.

Kritiks - I need a link in order to vote NEG on the K. I do not want a flimsy card as your only part of the link, I want a solid argument on it. A good link debate can change my mind on the K. However, if the AFF does not address the link at all, I will give it more weight.

Theory - Theory is a voter if it is not addressed by the other side. Just... do not drop theory. While I will vote on it, I will not like doing so. Conditionality: One conditional K and/or CP is not too much for a 2AC to take care of. Anything more than 4 is REALLY pushing it. 5-off is abusive.

Speaker Points - I typically give points from 27 to 29.5. I echo Brad Meloche when I say that, "Points below 27.0 are reserved for 'epic fails' in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial[, and other,] slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that)". Puns and pop culture references are cool. While this will not affect my overall decision on the round, it makes the debate more fun and will incline me to give you more speaker points.

Time Keeping - I urge you to keep your own time, however, I have the official clock for the round. I will start CX time as soon as the speech is over and will start prep time as soon as CX is over. If debating paperless, I will not take prep time for flashing or email, but I need to know when this is happening. Finally... DO NOT STEAL PREP.

Any other questions, please just ask.

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

Do: Ask me how to win :)

Dont: count down to starting your timer, or tell me when your prep starts, or need time to set up your timer after you were just taking prep. When you ask for prep I'll just start timing then you should be ready to speak when it's done.

- I did public forum for my 4 years of high school so the structure of your agrument and your ability to defend it is very important to me

- I love debate for the aspect of public speaking, so I expect you to not neglect that aspect and have good projection, pace, and tone while you speak

- I tend to have a short attention span so it's important for you to clearly speak and to remind me of what your contentions are. It is your job to explain clearly to me what the terms and concepts you are referring to mean

-Please clearly give me reasoning to any evidence you use and connect it to your side or else I can't consider your card. I want you to stand your ground as well as be respectful to one another

- Weigh impacts, I don't want to hear about your impact for the first time at the end of final focus, you need to consistently be bringing it up. Don't make the whole debate about framework, address it and move on. I have had so many debates where I was forced to judge based on framework because that's the only thing that was debated. If you don't know what framework is, that's fine

- I keep count of what contentions have been dropped and ones that have been brought back, but at the end I vote for the biggest impact or the best argument overall

- Don't waste cross time and make what you say worthy of note-taking for me, I can tell when you are purposefully wasting time

- I will cut you off if you go 10 seconds over time, time yourself, and keep track of your prep

-I want the debate to be fair as well as fun for both teams so please allow this to happen. I want to see you be confident and having fun please give it your all to this learning experience!

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

Please do not use progressive arguments in PF rounds; speak at an average rate and be nice to each other.

I am a former debater of Groves High School and a Spartan Debate Institute Alum. I recently graduated with a master's degree in Human Development and Family Studies at MSU. My educational background has taught me to consider not only impacts themselves, but for whom they are relevant. I am more likely to vote based on policy options when a team is able to convince me of the social justice impacts of said policy option. That said, I will consider framework when voting if a team convinces me that the debate should be evaluated a certain way.

As a general rule, I do not vote on kritiks unless the alternative is well-articulated and there is a clear link to the plan or status quo. I especially do not appreciate alternatives that involve doing nothing unless there is clear, convincing evidence as to why that should be done.

I will vote on topicality, but only if there is a clear violation (which rarely occurs). Debates would be better served by focusing on the core issues rather than arguing about the rules of debate unless it relates to how the round should be evaluated overall.

Please be aware that it has been some time since I last judged a round, so I would appreciate debaters slowing down during speeches.

Experience:

Competitive:

-PF Debate for 4 years for Brother Rice (2010-2014)

-Extemporaneous Speaking: 5 years (3 years for Brother Rice, 2 years for the University of Michigan)

-Rhetorical Criticism: 1 year (University of Michigan)

Judging:

-PF Debate (2015 – present) for Brother Rice

Professional:

-Programmer in the defense industry (2018 - present)

I typically flow on paper with colored pens in a notebook so there will be a lot of pen clicking.

I judge based on what I hear in the round, but also making way overgeneralized arguments and statements makes me sad inside.

I weigh what I hear talked about more than I weigh stuff that gets dropped by both teams.

Preferences:

Asking to See the Evidence: Don’t use it to steal prep, have a good reason for doing so.

Signposting: Please. Make it easy for me to follow and flow your arguments and responses.

Speed: Talk as fast as you’d like.

Summary and Final Focus: They’re not rebuttals, please don’t ramble. Being clear and concise about why you are winning goes as long way to helping me flow the round.

Timing: You’re more than welcome to time yourself, but my phone’s timer is the authoritative one.

Scott Warrow

Debate Philosophy Statement

I have been judging, teaching, and coaching policy debate for over 30 years at a variety of schools in Michigan and have always been open to a variety of arguments so as long as they are well-development and explained. Arguments need to be reasonably well understood by the debaters, more than just reading of tagline and evidence, debaters need to be able to explain the interconnectedness between arguments on and issues, the relationship between different issues, and the framing of the debate with a coherent narrative. Providing multiple avenues to show how you win and why relative to the opposing team, with the assumption that you may not win every argument, is critical to sound argumentation and my ballot.

I do like a well-developed and explained Kritik (AFF or NEG) debate. Don’t assume that I know what you are talking about or have read up on what is trending in the national circuit. I am familiar with popular Ks (Capitalism, Security, ect) and like creative thinking. But I don’t tend to fill in the holes with my own interpretation. So, a lackluster, undeveloped K does you more harm than good. That said, comparatively I do prefer policy-based debates that are strategic and thoughtful. I am not a fan of a negative team that runs eight off, with external contradictory positions. I am also not a fan of an Aff with a slew of undeveloped Advantages. Perhaps my least favorite group of arguments is theory debates. I often find them confusing and a regurgitation of taglines. Unless purposeful and strategic or completely dropped, I tend not to vote for a team to win the round on theory. Topicality, on the other hand, if thoroughly argued, I enjoy listening, however; it hard for me to vote Neg on T for a mainstream Aff that has been run all year.

Also, It is very important that debaters compare evidence and a weigh issues and arguments in rebuttals. I won't do it for you unless you leave me no choice. The line by line is important, but I am not going to vote on an undeveloped argument just because it is dropped on the flow. I need to be able to understand the arguments and evidence clearly in the context of the whole debater.

Finally, show respect, have fun, learn, and grow, and do your best. You can ask me any questions.

Hey, my name is Jake, not "Judge".

Addressing me as "Judge" just makes me feel not human and not present in the conversation we're having.

Since the Fall of 2019, I have judged and coached predominantly public forum and congressional debate for Dexter High School. I graduated from MSU with a degree in international relations. I am currently pursuing a Masters in Integrative Management and am a graduate admissions counselor for Michigan State.

I competed in policy debate with MSU from Fall 2015-Spring 2017. I attended Canyon Springs High School in North Las Vegas, Nevada. I’ve done all the forms of debate throughout middle and high school (PF for two middle school years, LD for one year, Congress for a few tournaments, and Policy my sophomore through senior year).

I want to give back to the activity that gave me so much.

I have paradigms written in the order:

1. Public Forum

2. Congress

3. Policy

4. Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

Please remember that Debate is much more about developing skills than winning a singular debate. I conceptualize Public Forum as an event which can be watched by anyone. You are encouraged to speak clearly rather than "spread". You should strive to learn all the short-hand, technology, and research skills of any other debate. Don't imitate the speaking quirks of other debates.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

You have 3:00 minutes of prep. Use it well. Do not steal prep before speeches. You should be ready when you say you're done. You should immediately go into cross-ex or the next speech. Setting your timer or document up to read is part of prep. Please get better at being more efficient.

Constructives:

I believe the first speaker holds the responsibility of providing definitions and the necessary context for understanding the topic. I do think definitions and context can be framed strategically in favor of the side in which the team is arguing; therefore, I would entertain counter definitions (and warrants to use one definition over another). Also, see the paragraph below about Framework.

I believe that if you are the second speaker, it is strategic for you to have a plethora of contentions that you can draw from to form a case that has built-in answers or "turns" for your opponent's case. For example, you know that you can only fit three contentions into your case to be within time. Yet, you have 5 or 6 possible contentions that you can put together to make a cohesive case. Reading one of your contentions that you know gives you a leg up on your opponents by either turning their argument or refuting their argument is strategic. It will also limit the ability of the first speaker to spread you out after their first rebuttal because the second rebuttal has to not only answer the first rebuttal but provide answers to the opponent's case.

I like it when teams use a lot of evidence, but if you have evidence that is using percentages, decimals, and whole numbers, please just do the conversion so they are all the same. I generally don't like data laundry lists, unless you specifically tell me why each point of data matters.

Summary:

Your summary should invest a lot of your speech time in impact comparison. Go through magnitude, timeline, reversibility (whether there is a brink point), etc. You need to be contextualizing your link scenario. You can not jump from an overview to saying that causes nuclear war without telling me who is fighting and why.

I catch maybe 50% of the authors/citations from the constructives. You can not just say "Extend Krueger" as an answer or extension. I probably don't know what evidence you're referring to. I would prefer if you say, "Extend Krueger which says...". At that point, I will usually catch the citation and call for the evidence if I really need to. I rarely call for evidence.

Final Focus:

Your final focus should start with a Reason for Decision. Tell me at the start the reasons I should vote for you and what my ballot does (does it fiat, actually save lives, decide on a decision about the rules of debate, or is it just a logical decision for which side I think is best.). The best teams can rehash the debate and close all the doors line-by-line.

Cross-Examination:

You should not be asking your opponent to reiterate anything. You should be asking leading questions like, "You said [paraphrase], correct?", "Your first contention was X, correct?". Asking "What was your first contention?" or "Can you explain your link scenario?" just gives your opponents more speech time and often leads to filibustering. If you ask these questions, you're lucky if you get good speaker points. I like teams who filibuster if their opponents don't know how to cross-examine them. I would like cross-ex to end at 3:00 minutes, not 3:30 because you're allowing the other team to ramble.

I don't typically flow cross-examination, but if you're asked a question like, "What is Iran's motivation to attack Israel?" and your response is, "Their feud goes way back." That doesn't give me much confidence that you actually understand your argument. This means your extension of that argument in the speech is just a reiteration with no contextualization, and that's not a good argument.

Framework:

In most of the PF debates I've seen, framework is not argued properly, and it has become an unnecessary 10 seconds of everyone's speech time. If a framework is not mentioned, I assume I should vote for the team attempting to do the greatest good for all people (general utilitarianism). If you want to provide a framework that tells me to vote for the good of America, the poor, the few, etc. tell me, and my ballot will assume that framework unless argued against. If you do not want to contest your opponent's framework, you don't have to. If the framework goes uncontested after the first constructive on either side, I don't need you to extend it through to your summary and final focus.

I think you can tell me whether my ballot has any actual meaning in the world. Does my ballot have a real world impact as soon as I vote? I would also entertain a framework that tells me to vote for the team that provides the best education/practice of skills because my ballot does not impact real policy.

Evidence Sharing:

Public Forum evidence sharing rules are dumb and unclear.

Any evidence read/cited in the round must be made available to the opponent upon request. Teams ought to be able to find and electronically share their evidence very, very rapidly. If the time spent finding a piece of evidence is beyond 90 seconds, I will begin taking prep away from the team asked to provide the evidence. The lack of prep time CANNOT be a reason to deny a team the chance to see their opponent’s evidence.
If a team simply cannot produce their evidence or is out of prep time to find it, it will be dismissed.
Time spent reading the opponent’s evidence must be timed in some way, either as prep time or while another speech/crossfire is underway.

Kritiks:

PF has not evolved to include Kritiks, from what I've seen. I don't think it should evolve in that direction. Four minutes doesn't really allow you enough time to make a good case for a Kritik like argument, and I think Public Forum should really be about developing real-world skills.

Word Choice:

I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of your speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc.

Conduct:

If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. I'll be happy if we are all comfortable and relaxed.

Congressional Debate

My ballots are typically short and include whether you've made an appeal to ethos, logos, or pathos. I try to judge congressional debate as interactive original oratory. Therefore, you should be hold yourself in the role of a senator and making the most appropriate appeal. I judge based on persuasive your speech was in relation to the other debaters, but also how well you held to the appeal you thought was most important on the topic. Make sure you're reading the entirety of the legislation, and speaking to the legislation as written and not the top line idea. Please cite your evidence or at least introduce your author.

Politics is a cut-throat world. I find it humorous that most of the congress rounds I've watched have devolved into this utopian atmosphere where you find a way to make sure everyone can give a speech. I do not like to reward students for being cordial in a competitive event. The presiding officer has the responsibility to give everyone fair and equal opportunities to speak. The other competitors can strategically use the rules of order to be more competitive. If you are consistently overriding the rules to allow multiple Pro speeches in a row, you are not doing anyone favors.

You should be preparing speeches for multiple legislation per round. If you missed your opportunity to speak on the one legislation you had prepared, that sounds like your fault. I also think there are plenty of pieces of legislation that are debatable on both sides, so if you can't play the devil's advocate on lop-sided legislation, you are not "playing the game".

Each speech should have clash. Rebuttal (with a direct reference to the senator who made the argument) is an example of clash. Adding nuance to another senator's point that was on your side is clash. If you are rehashing the same points, you are not clashing, and will not be rewarded for doing so. As the author of a bill, or first speaker on the bill, I evaluate your positive clash by seeing whether you have introduced all the major talking points on your side. I think you can introduce the talking points briefly, and allow other legislators to add evidence.

I think it is very difficult to judge the presiding officer. So long as the presiding officer is staying organized, and doesn't make mistakes, they typically do well. I think presiding officers hold the responsibility of encouraging good debate. They do not have to entertain every motion to postpone the rules and allow the last person to speak if the previous speeches on the topic have only been rehash. Given that presiding officers typically do well, I think it should be a competitive appointment. Unanimous decisions for who should be PO typically mean the kids know who the best in the round is.

For all points of order, I try to use Robert's Rules of Order. I'm no expert, but you should be: http://www.rulesonline.com/index.html

Policy Debate

Speed: You do you. I’m pretty good at following arguments if you’re clear and do work signposting. I have experience debating in front of flow and lay judges so I understand any experience level. Some speeds are impossible to follow unless you have a speech doc; don’t go that fast. I don’t think I ever want to get in the habit of flowing on my computer so you will most likely see me flowing on paper.

Theory: I’d vote on theory if it was dropped. Everyone has to lose on condo at least once in their life. If you’re going to make theory the only thing left in the debate, it needs to take up all of your time and you need to do a good job explaining why they’re abusive. Condo is really only abusive if there is more than 1 of each argument, but I can see either side. I’d still vote on condo (in some cases) if the neg met that interpretation but dropped condo.

T: I really only like watching T if the aff is clearly untopical, or if it’s a Kritikal affirmative. I evaluate the analysis of abuse the same as if it were theory. I don’t mind you putting T in the 1NC if you think it would be a viable 2NR option. I went for “T quid-pro-quo” on the Latin America topic quite a bit, but I knew it was really silly. I can also justify T if it is purely for laughs.

CP/DA: 99% of the time these were my go-to arguments in high school. Go for anything here! Extra bonus if you have aff specific arguments. I don't have too much experience going for politics as the Neg. I always went for PC isn't real as the aff and winners win. It's hard for me to vote on an unquantifiable influence token. I am willing to evaluate the evidence and determine my opinion of politics in the round.

K: Don’t read things that you haven’t done background research on. I read the security k and cap/neolib k throughout high school because I read a ton of books about them. I wrote a 25 page research paper on reevaluating American capitalism during my senior year of high school. I have background with any queer theory/gender/sexuality arguments you might have. Other than that, I’m not very familiar with most arguments, but if you do a good job explaining it, I’ll vote on it. Anything is fair game if it isn’t absolutely absurd. Coming from a background with little experience against the kritik, I can sympathize with the teams that freak out when a Kritik is read against them, but I won’t vote for them if they don’t answer the argument. If you can teach me new things, I’ll be happy.

K Affs: I really don’t understand the purpose of Kritikal affirmatives that don’t have a plan text. Most of the time I just hear implications of what voting aff means without getting a concrete answer. You should have a reason to vote aff, and I’m not sure what the reason is without a plan. I’ll vote for you if you do a good job explaining it. I have a litany of ways I’d scrutinize performative arguments that come from my background in interp. Go for what you do best.

Performance arguments: Most of my high school success came from Humorous Interpretation, where I qualified to the NIETOC twice. While I don’t think this will affect how you debate, it should make you think about how you read any performative arguments in front of me. I have been a 2A, 2N, and double 2s. I had a different partner every year in high school. I was mostly self-taught in policy, and my coach advised me to do a lot of silly things. I was part of the only policy team our school had. Therefore, I understand if you aren’t familiar with certain arguments or have limited backfiles, because I was in the same boat. I always preferred judge philosophies that were broke up into categories after the intro; therefore:

Offense vs. Defense: I feel like there are scenarios where the neg can win if they only have defensive arguments at the end of the debate, but don’t make that your priority. In that instance, I would evaluate that scenario as the world is better without the aff. Yet, I’d vote aff in that scenario if they proved benefits outweighed the cost.

Flashing/Prep/CX: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/email is sent unless there is a clear computer malfunction. Otherwise, it’s just inefficiency on your part. Don’t steal prep time. I am alright with tag team cross-ex, but don’t take all of your partner’s time. Cross-ex is a good opportunity to elaborate on arguments that have been/will be made.

Word Choice: I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of the 8/5 speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc. I’m okay with some cussing, but don’t make it like you’re talking to your best friend. If the other team reads an argument against you for cussing, I’ll laugh and vote for it if it is good.

Conduct: If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew, because it was fairly laid back. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. If you can make me feel comfortable, I’ll be happy.

Bonus points: I like people that express Spartan pride. Make good jokes and puns while speaking. Dance at any appropriate time during the debate. Make a reference to someone you know from Las Vegas. My dad is a magician. If you can do a relevant magic trick, I’d be amazed.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am predominantly a public forum judge and a former policy debater. I'm still learning the nuances of Lincoln Douglas, but hopefully, I can provide you with a clear paradigm. Most importantly, I want you to debate in whatever manner you feel comfortable debating. I can adapt.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think it is important for each side to present a value and value criterion. If one side has the two, but the other side does not, I will assume I should follow the uncontested value and value criterion.

I am familiar with most philosophies from either my policy experience or the classes I took in college. I'm not a huge fan of advertisements of nihilism, but could be persuaded to understand that some life events are inevitable or needed.

Intro

My name is Charly Ying, I was a PF debater (4 years), This is my third year judging, and I appreciate debate for the art form that it is. Show me you do as well and this becomes an excellent round.

I attend Michigan State University and I study International Relations (IR) with sub-areas in environmental and economic policy.

BE ON TIME! This applies in round, time yourself, yes you can have some grace before you get up there but If I see you daddling I will move you along.

Argumentation Style

Unlike previous years I am more open to theory if you can back why you are using it over the actual topic.

Extend Arguments into later speeches!!! While it's challenging, in my opinion, to extend arguments, it makes debate easier to judge when the dust settles.

Use framework for the entire round if you decide to bring it up. Show me why it is a valid framework, how the clash occurs in round, and why I again should be looking to yours over the opponents.

(Varsity) Omission = Admission

Evidence (Truth > Technical)

This section should not have to be here, but as I read more and more into it, I want debaters to be more conscientious of the evidence used in rounds and promote ethics across the field. The procedural norm for this should be to call out an opponent's evidence and then refute that or use a counterfactual process such as postdating.

It is your job as a debater not to merely be good at performing in PF debate but to make arguments that are the most truthful.

"That does not mean science can and should be used to support any position what-
soever. Scientific evidence places limits on what is empirically plausible, and if we
are to care about evidence, those limits must be respected. (Douglas 2014)"

More examples can be found here "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics" Weingart 1999.

Also, start an email chain or card doc to make sure I get the important information! HAVE CUT CARDS I WILL CALL EVIDENCE IN ROUND it's best we both use our time effectively

Time Management

I will keep your time, but you should also keep your time to synchronize. If you go over time, I'm not flowing it, I will cross my arms and watch.

Crossfires should be utilized accordingly, don't go too far over but also don't have zero questions.

Usually, I'm fine with medium to fast speed but Do Not policy spread, we created PF to break away, not mirror policy.

Outro

Please don't hesitate to ask questions before round!

If you have read all the way through ask me before round what are the only colors for extra points.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 8 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.

TLDR: I did PF in high school and did okay at TOC. I'm comfortable with any speed (unless you're an LD-level spreader, then send a speech doc) and argument you want to use (except K's, generally). If you really want, you can still run a K, but no guarantees I will evaluate it exactly how you want it to be evaluated.

More Shtuffs

• Tech > Truth. Run literally anything you want. Run human extinction caused by an alien invasion. It’s more fun.
• Grand cross is mostly pointless, but we still need to do it
• I do not flow crossfires. I don’t consider anything in crossfires. If it’s important, bring it up in a speech
• Anything not frontlined in second rebuttal is considered dropped
• Weigh. Please weigh. I’m begging you.
• I'm comfortable with theory, but not Ks. Just bear that in mind.
• Speed is fine. PF spreading is fine as long as you send a speech doc. I’m not comfortable with LD or Policy level spreading though.
• Everything in FF must be extended in summary. I refuse to extend anything for you. You need to extend the full link chain and impact
• When you and your opponent provide opposite warranting, give me a reason why I should prefer your's.
• I will only call for evidence after the round if you told me to do so explicitly

Send me evidence here: akirayoshiyama1@gmail.com

Greetings!

Hi! I am Stefanie Zin.

Please add me to the e-mail chain: zinst4364@gmail.com

If you don't read ANYTHING else, please read the following:

1.PLEASE SIGNPOST

2.PLEASE PROVIDE A ROADMAP

Okay, now that I've said that:

While I debated in high school for four years, and in college for two, it was a while ago. I have VERY LIMITED familiarity with most Kritiks and definitely not as fast a flow as I used to be. That said, you needn't act like you are giving an "after dinner speech". Related to speed, I also appreciate intelligibility. My motto is, "If I can't understand what you said, I can't flow it and if I can't flow it, I can't vote on it." To borrow a statement from my Ex-Husband, David Zin, "Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute."

I am a bit of a traditionalist: I tend to have a stock issues approach to the AFF, I like clear and succinct tags on evidence. You can read the evidence as fast as you want (assuming you are intelligible). I appreciate it when the 2NR/2AR not only provide me with justification as to why they win, but contrasts their position to the other team and explain how they outweigh.

Tag team CX is okay, within reason. I award speaker points based on the quality/content of the speeches as well as CX performance. I want all of the debaters to be able to think on their feet and not rely solely on their partner to "carry them through the round". Please demonstrate your independent understanding and mastery of the material (this will be rewarded).

Finally, I have a deep and profound respect for civility in a debate round. Your goal should be to prevail based on the content and quality of your argumentation, not on your ability to subject your opponent to abject misery and totally debase them. (This type of behavior will NOT be rewarded and you will NOT be happy with your Speaker Points as a result).

Please consider the following elements with an "X" denoting my position with respect to the spectrum of characteristics.

No Tag Team CX---------------------------X---Tag Team CX okay (within reason

Tech---------------------X----------------------Truth

Policy--X---------------------------------------Kritiks (As stated above, I have very limited experience with Kritiks.)

Theory--------------------------------------X------Substance

I'll read no cards----------------------X-----------I'll read all the cards

Lots of so-so cards ---------------------X-------- A few good, longer cards

Debate is about ideas--------------------X-------------------Debate is about people

Debate is good/valuable -X--------------------------------It's not

Conditionality bad-------------------------X--------------------Conditionality good

No process CPs ------------------------------X---------------Lit determines legitimacy

Politics DA not a thing --------------------------------X-------------(Good) Politics DA is a thing

Running Kritiks assuming I am infinitely UNFAMILIAR with them-----------------------X- Explain the K and the Alt and Framework

Framework with respect to Kritiks - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR FRAMEWORK IS PREFERABLE and how I should weigh it!!!

Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Unintelligibility (Trust me on this!)

I'm a robot-----------------------------------------X-Slow down on tags/cites/analytics/theory

Aff Ground--------------------X-------------------------Limits

Long overviews-----------------------------------X----Articulate positions, line by line

2NRs that collapse ---X------------------------------- 2NRs that go for everything

2ARs that assume I will vote AFF regardless------------------------------X-2ARs that tell my WHY to vote AFF.

I look forward to an enjoyable experience judging you and your team!