I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 3 yrs

Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches! Don't just throw around buzzwords with no actual weighing. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be extended in both speeches. I will usually vote off of the clearest link chain in the round. Cards should have quality warrants (less paraphrasing please). Quality over quantity.

I would prefer if offense (and maybe defense if possible, but not necessary) is frontlined in the second rebuttal, and that both teams collapse throughout the round. Do not try to go for too much.

Extend terminal defense in summary.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

I never ran any K's, theory, Cps, but will do my best following if ran.

Please be nice to each other!

qzpbellman@gmail.com

I did PF for 4 years (grad '22)

For email chain: morganmb22@gmail.com (send docs please if going really fast)

General PF Substance Stuff

• Tech>Truth, I evaluate the flow
• Assume I don't know anything about the topic
• Pre-flow before round
• Quality > Quantity of arguments / responses
• Everything you want to go for must be mentioned in summary (defense not sticky)
• The latest a new argument can be read is first summary
• Have the cut cards available for any pieces of evidence you mention
• 2nd Rebuttal has to frontline
• Collapse + extend warrants not just card names
• Okay with speed (no spreading) but make sure to send docs over before speaking if you are planning to go faster.
• (impact lvl) weighing is important but remember that you need a link into your impact for it to matter
• Cross is for questions, not arguing. As in, I'm not using cross to judge (with the exception of obvious concessions) so you don't need to counter something your opponent says if you don't agree, just move on w/o conceding anything unless you actually want to keep talking about it.
• Comparative weighing + link lvl warranting please
• I'm judging based on the flow so be clear about where you are on it
• I won't look at evidence unless it becomes a major problem in round / someone asks me to look at it
• Goes without saying but don't run offensive arguments
• Read TW w/ opt outs please (if argument is explicit)
• Be nice/ respectful to your opponents during round, your speaks will reflect your actions
• Wear what you want in round

Theory:

• Extend shell in summary and final focus
• Don't run theory on people who obviously don't know what it is / are unfamiliar with it just to win
• Paraphrasing (substance specifically): honestly no bias here, if it comes down to a paraphrasing debate I'm going to vote for whoever makes more sense
• If you are planning to run multiple offs just to win in prelim rounds that matter / elim rounds, I won't evaluate in a way you like
• I default to competing interps/ No RVI's/ drop the debater unless argued otherwise
• Must read shell right after the violation
• Okay w/ frivolous theory (again, your opponents must be familiar with theory tho + must be in prelims where breaking is not an option)

K's:

• I'm okayish with K's but run at your own risk (I ran a few topic specific cap K's but keep in mind this was in PF and I am overall not super knowledgeable about these type of arguments + perfectly evaluating them)
• I'm probably not familiar with the K you are running so you will need to SLOW DOWN and explain more (I'm not voting for it if I can't understand it)
• Like normal, extend everything you want me to evaluate from 1st summary on
• Don't paraphrase K's
• Weighing is VERY important here, honestly more-so than it is for substance just because you are often talking about out-of-round impacts

Feel free to ask me any questions both before and after round

I am not experienced in debate or judging. Please talk at a conversational level. I vote off of logic and reasoning. I value clarity in a debate round over most things, if I cannot understand or hear your argument because you are talking too fast or using terms I'm not familiar with, I will not evaluate it. Clarity is most important in later speeches, give me voters and lots of weighing. Don't use buzz words, instead contextualize why things matter, and what they have to do with the world and the round.

i vote off grand cross

no english????????

click this

I debated PF at Westlake High School.

Constructive

- if your going to use a framework it must be warranted, and you'll need to extend the framework in every speech along with its warrant if I'm going to evaluate the round using it.

Rebuttal

- second rebuttal must frontline turns, but doesn't have to rebuild case (you should still be getting to the important parts of your case obviously, but I'm not going to drop your case if you don't get to every piece of defense).

- I love when a weighing mechanism is set up in rebuttal (if it's applicable to the round so far)

Summary

- if it's not said in summary, it's off my flow except for defense from rebuttal that was not responded to (sticky defense)

- in my opinion it's never too late in the round to call out misconstrued evidence, but indicts and evidence specific responses to need to come before first summary just like any other new response.

Final Focus

- collapse and weigh

- still need warranting, even if it's brief

General

- PLEASE WEIGH

- I'm not going to vote for you if you just tell me you win on timeframe or probability etc. Your weighing needs to be warranted, and it will help you even more if it's consistent (same weighing used in summary and FF).

- develop a narrative, if you and your partner appear to be on the same page it makes my choice a lot easier.

- Theory was not very big when I debated, but I understand the need for it when something offensive has happened in the round. If theory is conducive and topical to what has occured in the round I'm all for it and I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability (if you get up and spread disclosure theory against an obviously way less experienced team your best case scenario is a low point win. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory especially when ran by big schools; in my experience judging and debating I've only ever seen big schools run it who a. have the resources to prep out disclosed cases and b. are typically just using the fact that not all PF debaters know theory well enough to stand a chance, and I dislike that.)

- I'll do my best to evaluate more progressive arguments but I'd prefer that they're topical (plans, CPs, Ks, etc) but you need to do a good job of explaining/warranting them since I never debated them. Again, it should be topical to the round/topic.

PF Paradigm at the top, LD at the bottom. I approach the events in a completely different manner. I wouldn't apply what is in the PF paradigm to LD.

PF Paradigm

I am a coach that has been involved with debate for a while. At the most basic level, I will evaluate the impacts students have access to at the end of the round using the weighing/framing mechanisms provided. You should be weighing in the back half of the round. Here are some notes about the details.

-I am listening but not flowing crossfire. While I'm not voting on anything that is said here, I am judging your knowledge of the important args and the topic in general.

-I am not tab. The best description of my judging style is a critic of argument. I want to vote for the best debaters, and to that end, I feel this activity is at its best when students explain warrants. I will vote on consequential drops, but I almost never vote on unwarranted blippy claims, even if they are carded. So for instance, if Smith 20 says "the economy will crash in two months," and that is the end of the story; for the purposes of the round I am not assuming the economy will crash in two months. You need to explain why Smith thinks that and contextualize its importance within the round. If Smith doesn't give a reason you are comfortable explaining, or you don't understand why Smith thinks that, this argument should not effect the RFD. My bar for a warrant that I will accept is very low(often I disagree with the warrant but still accept it), but the bar does exist. Just give me something that makes sense. The top competitors warrant and do all this naturally, so I don't think a lot of adapting should be going on.

-I prefer a brisk but understandable pace in the rebuttal/summary speeches, offense in the FF needs to be clearly extended (preferably weighed) throughout.

-I view debate as a game that teaches essential skills, and will vote for the students that in my opinion win the game. Using offensive arguments or not respecting the dignity of your opponents will lead to you losing the game.

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on theory. I am ok with paraphrasing but prefer direct quotations. I do not expect disclosure (full text or otherwise).

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on a non-topical K. There is a zero percent chance I will vote for a K that links into the topic in general. If the K has a strong link into the opponents advocacy, I will consider it, but probably still vote against it.

-Defense is not sticky.

-You should frontline in 2nd Rebuttal.

-Sell terminal defense, I have a higher bar for granting access to the impact then a lot of judges.

-There is no reason for a plan or CP.

-I don't like politics DAs, in policy rounds they work as a net benefit to a CP decently, but as independent offense in PF I think it is poor in general. The only way I'm voting on it is if it the other team severely mishandles it or has no offense I can comfortably vote on.

-If you want to see cards have the names ready and say them immediately after the speech. The 1st speaker for each team should be ready and adept at sending cards. I am not ok with a stream of asking for cards one after the other stretching out the time. The PF round should end in roughly an hour.

LD Paradigm

The PF paradigm above doesn't apply very much here. I debated LD in high school, but that was a long time ago. In LD, I'm resigned to being tab and voting on execution. I will try my best to reward the better debater, so if you can go fast and clear that is good.

I prefer debate on the topic and I view this activity as a game, so my natural inclination is to expect the resolution to grant both sides with ground, although the specifics can be debated. In general, I don't like to vote on blippy drops. I rarely vote for non-topical affs. Framework debate is ok and I will vote for the debater that executes their style the best. I enjoy judging debates with clash, and reward developed arguments which clearly link to the core issues of the resolution. I will vote for Plans, CPs, DAs, Ks, Theory, and framework. You are not winning the round in cross.

I don't have a problem with speed, but if I can't understand what your saying I will not connect the dots for you. A brisk speech that is clean is preferable to a faster pace in which words are mumbled and there are many noticeable stumbles. I keep a detailed flow and if an argument is dropped it matters. I like to hear voters during the final speeches.

Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol

Tabula Rasa

Debate is a game

K's, T, disads, theory, and any progressive args are fair ways to play

I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them

you're probably not winning a generalized theory bad IVI in front of me,

if you think you've encountered bad theory, read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive

default competing interps

speed is fine

feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision

will.erard@gmail.com

For readers:

I flow real good so follow the rules

No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read extinction framing or struc vi in final

Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped

If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore

You should frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary

I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech

I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess

FOR LD

tech pf judge

larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise

theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably wont mess it up

T: T is cool i guess

Ks: mostly familiar with the structure but not with the lit, go easy on me, I might mess it up but I'll try my best

fine with spreading as long as I have the doc

ask specific questions if you have them!

hello!

I do PF at Hendrickson

Please be nice to each other

signpost, please.

I vote off my flow

feel free to ask me questions before the round

email: gmelanie877@gmail.com

I have done PF debate for four years at westlake. TOC and TFA State qualed.

I am okay with any argument as long as you extend, give me voters and are winning on the flow.

Don't be offensive, racist, sexist, antisemitic, etc. or I will drop you and your speaks.

Have fun in round and make it a positive experience for everyone.

Bonus speaks if you include a call out to Bad Bunny, do a 360 spin during a turn or make me laugh.

I didn't debate in high school, but a lot of normal stuff still applies to me: I won't intervene, I won't overly penalize you for presentation, and I want everyone in the round to be kind to one another. A chill round with well warranted and implicated arguments is ideal.

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."

I'm a Junior Math and Finance major at UT Austin. I did not do debate at an American high school, but I've been judging PF (and extemp) in Austin and am very familiar with the structure.

First half of the round:

- If you choose to provide a framework I will evaluate the round using it as long as it's warranted well and you extend it

- 2nd rebuttal doesn't need to rebuild

Back half of the round:

- Weighing is the easiest way to get my ballot, especially probability: in most cases the magnitude of your event is only significant to me if you prove that it's probable.

- If your opponents bring up new evidence in 2nd summary or 1st final focus, don't assume I noticed, point it out in your speech

General:

- I'm fine with speed (but not spreading) as long as you are clear; I will dock your speaks if you don't speak clearly

- I expect that you're keeping track of your own prep and speech time, unless you ask me otherwise

- I'm not familiar with theory/K's/plans/counterplans but I'm not opposed to voting for them as long as they are well explained

he/him

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 4 yrs, graduating in 2019.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. Don't just say the words extend + the card author. Please actually extend argument. If you don't, I will look to vote elsewhere. Weighing is very important. Please give me a way to evaluate the round.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. For online debate, I think its good practice to send speech docs prior to constructive given connectivity issues. If an email chain is used, I would like to be added.

I'll attempt to evaluate any argument you read in front of me, but I am more comfortable with standard stuff. I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round!

Lastly, please be nice to each other.

If anything in here was unclear, I'm happy to answer your questions!

**i want to emphasize that I was a pretty traditional PF/LD debater and my experience with theory/other progressive arguments was very limited. i won't evaluate any progressive arguments (including disclosure theory). for LD, treat me like a lay judge**

1. I vote on the flow, with that being said if it is not said, I can't vote on it. However, if both teams are not doing the work, I'll have to do it alone, and you might not like my decision.
2. Respond to everything if you are going for an argument. If you don't respond to it, it's conceded.
3. Whenever you extend a case you need to extend the entire link chain, not just the argument. This includes extending authors, warrants, and impacts.
4. Don't speak fast.

Hi, I’m Ellie.

I’m the parent of an lder and only have minimal experience judging ld. I am happy to judge anything just be clear and treat your opponents and others with respect.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Looking forward to judging you :)

Email

sroach@eanesisd.net

PF Paradigm

Mostly a tab judge. Prefer cards heavy on emperics and warrants. Like to see weighing come down to impacts but just looking for clash in summary speeches. Poise and confidence in grand cross is important but won’t change the ballot. Just focus on what you can control in the round and I’ll flow based on the line of argumentation presented.

IE Paradigm

Organization is key!! I'm paying close attention to sign posting and transitions. If you're competing at a high level, finding content and sources should be the easy part; fitting in the right material for each main point and correctly citing authors/publications is where I am looking for you to move the needle for placement in your room.

When applicable, I love tactful and purposeful attention getting devices. If you're using an analogy, can you lace it through your entire speech? Are you using a famous quote to get things start? It should be related or connected to the content of the speech. I love to laugh, or be challenged, or intrigued. Use what you feel comfortable with.

Dedicate the appropriate amount of time to each component of your presentation, performance, speech etc. Long winded intros or 10 sec conclusions communicate to me that you structure or outline needs crafting.

She/Her

Westlake 22

I have participated in PF for the last four years.

You can debate whatever you want and I will evaluate it, however I want there to be a certain level of clarity and logic in your arguments. Do not be offensive and be respectful. Have fun!

I debated for four years in Texas in PF and briefly in LD. I have a solid knowledge of critical arguments and theory. I currently compete for the Texas Speech Team in Extemp and all the Public Address Events.

My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward.

- Impact calculus is important to me, I want to see a clear weighing of both worlds, especially in the summary. With impacts, I prefer you give me clear material impacts on people, rather than just saying things like nuke war. Contextualize your impacts!

- I like clean, straight down the flow debate with a lot of clash. Sign-post during speeches.

- Not the biggest fan of card-debate. Use that time to make arguments rather than harp over minor things in cards!

- Make extensions that clearly tell me what exactly I'm supposed to extend, not just dropping a card name.

- If you introduce a new argument in the Summary, I won't evaluate it. Stick to extending already established offense/defense.

- I'm good with speed (just enunciate as much as you can) and pretty much all types of critical arguments.

- Be conscious of your positionality and how you treat others in round. Rounds can get intense but at the end of the day, debate should be a space that is safe and empowering for everyone involved.

In extemp, I value unified analysis, a solid demonstration of background/historical knowledge on the question, and confidence in delivery. Using substantial and diverse sourcing (so like in international speeches, don't only cite Western outlets) in each point while weaving in the analysis is a marker of a good speech for me.

For Duet, I don't want to see any unnecessary PDA.

- For Extemp:

1. Make to sure to include a humorous or captivating AGD in the intro.

2. Please, provide a blanket statement corresponding with your answer to the question. Ex. "Yes, because of...."

3. 3 points of elaboration to the answer are a must.

4. I provide 3-down time signals.

5. I have extensive background in DX and FX. Additionally, I am currently a public affairs graduate student. Inaccurate statements or misrepresented statistics will be reflected in your rank.

For Debate events:

1. Don't spread. Speak clearly. Spreading will ensure that at most, you'll receive 28.5 speaker points.

2. I judge based on the flow. With that being said, I evaluate impacts above all else. If you extend and cogently argue your biggest impacts, you'll likely win.

I did pf at Westlake for 4 years

- Tech > Truth

- I will evaluate anything that is not exclusionary

- Please warrant, implicate, and extend all parts of any arg you want to be evaluated in all speeches

- I can somewhat evaluate theory, for K's or Tricks just explain it more lol

- Send docs before speech for >250wpm

- Have fun

@zainsyed78666@gmail.com

I debated PF for 4 years at Westwood High School and now Attend UT Austin. I am tech over truth. if you prove to me that the sky is made of dogs I’ll believe you.

Email: danieltehrani110@gmail.com

General:

• Go line by line not big picture

Evidence:

• If you paraphrase that is fine. However, if you're falsifying evidence while paraphrasing and it’s a piece of evidence I call for or your opponents tell me to call for, I will drop the argument.

• The same goes for cut cards if you're falsifying that then I will drop the argument.

• I have a high threshold for evidence quality, spend the time to get good evidence

• For online tournaments I want speech docs. That includes your case doc and any speech after that if you read off a doc. It helps me ensure I don't miss an argument that could be pivotal in the round.

Progressive Arguments:

• You can run them if you want but make sure to go slower and ensure that I understand them and why they are being run. I never read progressive arguments in high school so keep this in mind before considering reading something

• If I perceive that you are just reading something to win a round rather than trying to fix an issue either in debate or society then I will just drop the argument and lower your speaks

Speed:

• I’m good with any speed, other than genuine spreading.

Speaks:

• You start with good speaks and good strategy, speaking, and argumentation will bring that up further but sexism, homophobia, racism and other similar issues will earn you a 25

Offs/Dissads/overviews/underviews:

• You can read as many as you want but make sure to keep the Warranting for the argument

Prep Time

• Don’t steal prep

• Keep track of time yourself

Constructive:

• The only thing I’ll say here is to sound alive. Try to not sound bored out of your mind.

Cross:

• Be kind and courteous to your opponents i.e. have basic manners.

• If you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, or any similar thing then you will get the L and 25 speaks. This is really for the whole round not just cross

Rebuttal:

• 1st Rebuttal should respond to their opponents case, introduce any new offs, weighing, overviews etc.

• 2nd Rebuttal should frontline their case and respond to all offense your opponents put on you. You can concede a NU or delink to get out of frontlining an argument.

• 2nd. Rebuttal should respond to all responses or otherwise it is conceded

Summery:

• There is no sticky offense or defense

• Make sure to crystallize

• 1st Summary should frontline the offense you are going for while extending the link chain. 1st summary should also extend and/or frontline all responses that they want to extend. Since there are 3 minutes in summary now make sure to weigh if you don’t the round becomes much more difficult to evaluate

• First summary should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined (so, if the second rebuttal frontlines, the first summary should interact with that frontlining

• 2nd summary should frontline and/or extend any offense they are going for and explain the link chain. They should also frontline/extend any response they want to extend. Also weigh

• Every argument (that is offense) needs to be explicitly extended (claim, warrant, impact) to be evaluated. For defense, a claim and warrant extension is enough. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Final Focus:

• Summaries and Final Focuses should match in content. Don’t introduce any new responses (like new NU and Delinks) at this point of the round. If you want me to evaluate an argument it must be in both SUMMERY AND FF

• Make sure to extend the claim warrant and impact and weigh for all offense you are extending in the round. Make sure to integrate frontlines to the responses they have made

• Implicate everything and do comparative interaction on the warrant/link/and impact level

I am a parent from Westwood HS. My son competes in extemporaneous speech. This is the second tournament I have judged.

Policymaker paradigm, but open to all arguments.

Quality > quantity of arguments.

Speed isn't an issue, but analysis of arguments > speed. Evidence is necessary, but reading a bunch of cards back to back isn't a substitute for analysis/explaining the impact of that argument in your own words.

Feel free to ask specifics prior to the round.

Hi, I'm Kobe and I was a high school debater at Saint Mary's Hall 3 years ago. I have some experience with PF, but I mostly did extemporaneous speaking in high school. I would prefer you treat me as a lay judge, however.

I will enter the round with a clean slate

Please speak slowly and clearly if you would like me to understand your arguments

Try to use little to none jargon

I will have some topic knowledge but still warrant out all of your arguments well

Be civil and respectful throughout the round. I do not want to judge a round where one team is clearly not having a good time.

Most importantly though: Have fun!

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years and qualled for TOC 3 times kind of

email cheriewang835@gmail.com

send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but if u and ur opponents don't decide to share cases just send to me). If i don’t get docs from you i’m giving 26s

judges r allowed to eval disclosure at TFA state so i will do that and u can see more info about disclosure below.

general things

idk the topic so clarify acronyms in speech and remember things i don’t understand aren’t evaluated as well and it is up to u to make me understand and eval them well

also speaks buff if u play a subway surfer video on ur computer for me during ur speeches it helps me flow better (u shld clarify what this means pre round so u don't do it wrong i would hate for u to waste ur time)

+.25 speaks buff every time u say “wow it’s sooooo preppy in here” when u finish taking prep

snacks are 30s (no starbucks)

no silly speaks buffs at tfa its not allowed sorry

tech>truth

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow. if u go too fast (especially if i'm tired) could be ggs idk what to tell u. i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me just because the other team didn’t respond to it. for reference u should top out ~800-900 words in constructive and thats being pretty generous

i ask for docs but i'm not flowing off them that is not an excuse to go faster than i can handle and then get angry about the decision later

be nice or get 25s.

read whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it!

signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost

i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact then they are basically meaningless to me

u r very welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late then try to keep it short) or via email. i will not be mad education is great

random things

when u point out a lack of a warrant for something please also read a counter warrant or else it is not an effective response unless completely dropped!

if u read turns can u read impacts please

if u read turns can u read weighing please

if u read turns can they not be Your Case Pt. 2 But The Card Names Are Different please

hege args need real warrants too. for the one going around at state you should know that i hate the arg. won't intervene on it and have voted on it twice now but i do not like it. if u decide to read it anyway i will eval it like a normal arg i just want you to know that i hate it

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like that one. generally speaking i like bears)

above most other things i hate teams wasting my time and making me flow things that aren't useful. like i would rather hear analytics than random turns u won't go for or 8 pieces of ev that all say the same thing in rebuttal. weigh or make extra implications to pad ur time instead of reading useless ev.

do not waste both of our time by reading an overview if you are going to read it again as link level responses.

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing in this speech.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. presuming with a coin flip is lame

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

SPARK AND OTHER IMPACT TURNS R AWESOME AND COOL BUT MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A LINK!

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF AND WE HAVE STARED TO ALLOW PPL TO READ THE WORST IMPACTS I'VE EVER HEARD CAN WE STOP PLEASE!!

because of something cale mccrary made me read i would also really enjoy seeing teams experiment with responding in second constructive but thats just a thought. im pretty sure no one will do this but if u do i will pad speaks for cool strategy

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one because that's so much cooler) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times i will dock speaks harshly for bad strategy. give a real rebuttal if i wanted to hear 5 pieces of evidence saying schools will cut sports programs i would read it myself.

progressive debate

i'll judge anything as best as i can

i love judging theory but that means when it's bad, i hate it a lot more than mid/bad substance. i will take mediocre substance over mediocre or bad theory any day. however do not be afraid to read theory in front of me if you are fairly new to it because i love seeing people experiment and learn about progressive/new argumentation more than i hate hearing a bad theory round.

theory is great including friv but if u r being funky, u must also be fun. otherwise its just kinda terrible for everyone else and no one wants that especially not me (and u dont want that either because u won't like ur speaks)!

if u read friv and do a bad job at reading theory ill be mad cus why are u wasting my time and everyone else's

all parts of theory need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals (but if u want to make the argument that a rebuttal extension is necessary, go for it--it's just not my default). if u forget to extend something like DTD and they point it out u will probably not be winning off theory!

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan for os disclosure and am very open to hearing arguments for disclosure, os, misdisclosure whatever. obviously my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

k's are out of my area of expertise so run at ur own risk--i don't mind hearing them and i'll try my best to eval but idk the big words. on top of that speed will absolutely make my brain fold in on itself and implode. if u want to read one u should probably gauge my experience w them and talk to me before round

i need a lot of judge instruction and a minimal amount of buzzwords for k's (as in i will not understand buzzwords and need full explanation in their place). personally im by far the most familiar with cap but every time i learned about wrote or debated k, all the knowledge went in one ear and out the other in like a week

again, BE NICE. especially if ur reading progressive args on novices.

I debated at Westlake for 4 years.

I can’t hear that well so please speak clearly if you’re talking fast unless you want docked speaks.

Not familiar with progressive argumentation, you can run it if you want practice just don’t trust I can evaluate it without explanation.

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions!

Evidence or anything goes to cmwehring@gmail.com

Parent judge 

Did policy in high school but am very rusty 

Westlake 21, Wharton 25

Debated for five years. Currently coach for Potomac Debate Academy. I like warrants and implications a lot.

- If you go a regular pace and win the round, I will award you with fantastic speaks. Don't go fast for the sake of going fast.

- I will vote for the easiest path to the ballot. Do extend and do weigh. If you don't, don't expect to get >27.5 speaks.

- Time yourself and your opponents. No one does and it is annoying.

- Preflow before round. If you show up to round not preflowed, I will dock speaks heavily.

- Can and will evaluate prog. I am best at evaluating theory, and then more basic Ks. If you're gonna run anything be very clear about how it functions in the round. I am now three years out from my last K debate. I have forgotten a lot. Please run things well.

- Docking speaks a lot if it takes a long time to pull up evidence.

- If you disclose, lmk and I'll add 0.5 speaks.

You can email me at xyz85678@gmail.com or FB message me. Sometimes I don't see message requests though.