Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2013-2017 in LD and was briefly a part of the Kansas University Debate team. I judge periodically and I enjoy watching past debate recordings on Youtube. Here's my favorite :) Scottsdale CD v Interlake AL

Add me to the email chain: will@sorrelslaw.com

My Paradigm

- In round (and outside of round for that matter) show your opponents the respect you ought to have for yourself.

- I'm okay with speed (6/10-8/10 with 10/10 being Ram Prasad in TOC Quarters and 1/10 being NSDA Finals in 2019). At the bare minimum just slow down on taglines, author names, and in rebuttals. Also, be clear. If you are going to go fast, it should at least be clear, otherwise just slow down, you probably don't need that last D&G card... I will let you know if you are going too fast or being unclear.

- I am a believer in truth over tech. However, at the end of the day, do what you are comfortable with and have fun.

• To expand on the above point; frivolous theory, confusing kritiques, and floating PICs are not my cup of tea.. but if you like them, don't let me stand in your way of running them, just explain them thoroughly.
• Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, and framework debates are my cup of tea. I enjoy clashing ideas about the topic assigned by our glorious NSDA overlords. Education is important after all :)

- Jokes are welcome, as long as they don't come at the expense of the person you are debating

- Speaker points are determined by your strategy, speaking skill, CX, and decorum with your opponent.

- I will vote on anything as long as it is justified as a ballot-winning position.

• Give me voters.
• Weigh your arguments.
• Be clear on how you are winning compared to your opponent and why I should vote for you.

The rest of my paradigm is stolen from my former teammate Joey Georges who stole it from Neville Tom

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

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

He/Him/His

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

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

TLDR

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

Tech>Truth

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

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

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

Speaking Style and Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

Summary/Final Focus

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

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

Miscellaneous Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

bellaire '21 | ut '25

he/him

put me on the chain: wfan042211@gmail.com

general:

tech > truth

trad is good, theory is a coin flip unless violation is blatant

constructive:

send a doc if fast

rebuttal:

quality > quantity

no offensive overviews in second rebuttal

summary:

make it clear what ur going for

final focus:

be clear, should cover what summary covered

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Elkins '20 | UT '24 | UHL '27

Email: rhasib01@gmail.com

I don't have experience with this topic

I did PF for 4 years

2 gold bids 3 silver bids

Overall

- I cannot keep up with speed. I cannot keep up with speed. I cannot keep up with speed. The quality of the debate is better when its at a reasonable pace

- I dont want your speech doc

- Reading any progressive arguments (theory, tricks, Ks, etc) = L20. Please strike me if you plan on reading these types of arguments, I will not vote for you.

- Sit or stand I don't mind

- Assume I'm ready at all times unless I say otherwise

General

- Tech > Truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- If you do not sign post properly, I will miss a lot of your speech. This is VERY important.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE frontline first AND THEN extend the argument, otherwise it looks like ur extending through ink until you decide to frontline.

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read. a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Frontlining turns in second rebuttal are crucial, any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- I recommend collapsing starting 2nd rebuttal but it's up to you

- You don't have to extend at all in second rebuttal, just frontlining is cool with me

- Please do not read an offensive overview in second rebuttal

Summary Overall

- Do all extensions with author names and the warrant behind them

- If you want me to vote off case offense, you have to extend uniqueness - link - impact and then you should be good

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have an impact ie: if you extend a link turn you also have to extend the other teams impact

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is ok

- Defense is not sticky even in 1st summary, mb

Second summary

- You gotta extend defense

- Weighing has to start here if you want me to evaluate it in the round

Final focus

- Still extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing

- Mirroring your partners summary is key, don't extend anything that was not in summary

Cross

- Don't forget to time cross, happens way too much

- Cross is for yall more than it is for me

- I like cross makes the debate kind of interesting

- You can skip grand cross, up to you

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it's SUPER important for the decision or the other team tells me to call for it

- If you take forever pulling up evidence I will be very mad

Post Round

- I'll disclose unless tourney directors say otherwise

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

- If you still for some reason want to run something progressive and are doing it for an easy ballot because you know your opponents can't respond properly, L20

Have fun and let me know if you have any questions :)

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Elkins '20 | TAMU

Email: a9pratap@gmail.com

messenger is preferred

i did PF for 4 years throughout the texas circuit

General

- Debate is a game. I consider myself to be tech > truth. I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact

- Speed: go as fast as you want but provide a speech doc and go slow on tags if you are faster than what is considered normal for the activity. I’ll yell clear once and allow anyone in the round to call it whenever. Just keep in mind the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something or lag behind so do it at your own risk.

- Signposting and weighing are essential

- I’m fine with flex prep and open cross

Progressive stuff

- I won’t say that I will not evaluate any any Ks, theory, or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF, but I am incredibly uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these. The only exception is offensive overviews or DA’s in second rebuttal, don’t

Rebuttal

- I won’t require you to frontline in second rebuttal, anything not responded to is conceded

- Any defense that you concede to should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was read

o A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with tour argument not just “we concede to the delinks”

- Turns conceded in second rebuttal or first summary have a 100% probability and can only be beaten back by outweighing them

Summary/Final

- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.

- Case offense/ turns need to be extended by author name or source otherwise I will not extend it for you

o do- “extend jones who writes that extensions like these are good because they are easier to follow”

o don't do “remember we tell you extensions like these are good”

- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

- New evidence is only fine for frontlining in first summary, defense must be extended since they 3 mins

- For FF, a good friend told me it should include everything you tell your friends/teammates after the round is over. Write my ballot for me.

- Weighing must be made before final focus, the only type of new weighing allowed is responding to it from second summary, second summary is last chance to weigh. Personally I think link weighing is more convincing than impact weighing.

- I do not think weighing is essential in winning my ballot but it definitely helps

- For FF extensions I don’t have a high threshold, all I need is your explanation of your link story and its impact.

Other

- Evidence, I will only call for it if someone in the round explicitly tells me to. I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage. You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked (exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it)

- Speaks, I will reward them based on strategy and decorum

- Cross, it is binding and I will pay attention any crucial point has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it

Do not

- Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading (includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices)

- Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/xenophobic and all those ists

- Read a K-style argument dealing with identity when you aren’t a member of that group.

o i.e- dont read a fem K if you’re a male male team and ESPECIALLY dont read it on females if you’re a male male team, that is just trivializing the argument

- having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other than that I agree with nilay raj and bryan with few stylistic differences

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

Strake Jesuit '19 | Duke University '23

Email: RainDropDropTopSpeechDoc@gmail.com

Background: I did PF for four years in the Texas and National Circuits. Qualified for TFA State three times and Gold TOC three times, clearing at both. I formerly coached for Strake Jesuit in Houston and served as the tournament director for the Strake Jesuit PFRR from 2018-2022. I was heavily influenced by policy debate, so I generally agree with their debate norms.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. I evaluate tech>truth only. I am tabula rasa, meaning you can read any argument as wild as you want and I will vote on it as long as it is warranted and not offensive. I mainly did LARP/traditional debate but also have experience debating theory and Ks, so you can run whatever you want. However, I only vote on arguments I understand, so I am more impressed by PF and policy-esque arguments more so than LD. Content wise, I strongly prefer in-depth substance over random off-case debate. I believe that my role as a judge is to be an educator and a norm-setter. In a nutshell, I take from Andy Stubbs in that I vote for the team with the strongest link into the highest layer of offense in the round.

Disclosure/Chains: Disclosing to the NDCA PF wiki is the only way to get above 29 speaks. Tell me if you disclose. If you are sharing docs or spreading, use Speechdrop, flash drive, or email chain.

Evidence: Cut cards > paraphrased. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if it is contested. For citations, I just need author name and year. Misconstruction of evidence will result in lower speaks, based on how flagrant it is.

Speed: Clarity>Speed. If you are clear, go as fast as you want. Slow down on author names, tags, and analytical arguments in case/rebuttal. Then, since I would be familiarized with your evidence, you can speed up summary/FF. Not the biggest fan of spreading; if you do, send docs. If you do spread, it must be cut card and not paraphrased evidence.

Style: Line by line debate only. Extend by author name and sign-post. Implicate all offense in terms of how it affects the ballot. Sign-post.

Speaker Points: Speaks are based off of in-round strategy only. Everyone starts with a 28 and I'll go from there. 29.0+ for disclosing only.

Misc: Speech times are set. One team is aff and one team is neg. I only vote for one team. I only down one team. No double wins or double losses unless instructed by tab. Speeches are set i.e. first speaker gives case and summary. Fundamental rules are set.

[Part 1: Speeches]

Cases: Run whatever you want.

CX: I'm okay with open CX meaning your partner can join in to clarify answers. You can also both agree to use the rest of cross as prep time.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal just has to answer turns on case, not defense. Don't read a blipstorm of paraphrased responses or card dump; I either won't be able to flow it or won't feel comfortable voting on it. Not impressed by irrelevant DAs that don't actually engage the aff. Depth>Breadth. I like analytics especially when they implicate cards. You can read overviews, new advantages, add-ons, uniqueness updates, link boosters etc., but they must be based off of case or directly answer your opponent.

Summary: First summary doesn't have to extend defense, but must extend turns. Second summary has to extend defense and answer turns. Turns conceded out of second rebuttal are considered dropped for the round. Most (preferably all) new implications must be made in summary. I am fine with advantage add-ons and link boosters in summary, but I would like it more if these are read in rebuttal if possible.

Final Focus: This is the speech you call out drops and implicate the stuff extended in summary. Second FF should not have too many new weighing/implications. Anything outrageously new in 2FF will not be evaluated. It's subjective, but you'll know if something is too new in 2FF. Just weigh and implicate here.

[Part 2: Off-Case Debate]

General:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 very comfortable and 5 unfamiliar) of how I feel about judging these arguments:

Framework: 1; I like it. Introduce in case.

Kritiks: 3; No high theory. I like topical Ks. K affs and Reps Ks are fine too. I care most about the strength of the alt when it comes to Ks.

Theory: 2; My defaults are CI>Reasonability and no RVIs. Still tell me what I should prefer. I don't like friv theory. I default T>K.

T: 3; I default drop the argument. I default T>K.

DAs: 1; Yes. My favorite type of argument

Plans/CPs: 1; Tell me why the CP is competitive. Solvency advocates help. I don't like multi-planked CPs.

PICs: 3; Same as CPs but you must also provide a net benefit.

PIKs: 5; Not a fan. No experience with this.

Tricks: 5; Not a fan.

Non-T: 5; No experience with this.

Misc: I'm not too familiar with arguments like permissibility, skep, presumption etc. so I will try my best to evaluate them, but my understanding and threshold for response are fairly low.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any!

Have Fun!

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptopI will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

• Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.

• My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument

• dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
• love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

• "I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

• My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

• Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

• I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want

• Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

• If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

• The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
  
  
• i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.

• There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.

• I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.

• Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

• DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

• If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

• take flex prep if needed

• Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

• When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

Strake Jesuit '18, University of Texas at Austin '22

Creator of the PF wiki

Conflicts: Strake Jesuit, Plano West

Contact: Facebook message me or email me with any questions about my paradigm/the round.

Email:dwang18@mail.strakejesuit.org

***Just my personal thought: "flow/tech" judges that refuse to vote on theory (esp disclosure) are worse than lay judges. ***

"Flow" judges or just people in general who refuse to vote in disclosure theory or other progressive arguments are the worst judges on the circuit and are carcinogenic to the activity (I said it). It's like saying I won't evaluate x case argument because I don't agree with it personally even if the debate is heavily one-sided in-round. All the arguments against it are just bad.

***Disclosure bad is the worst argument I've ever heard but if you win cause your opponents can't debate I guess I'll buy it***

Disclosure is also a true argument but tech > truth.

-Interp texts must be sent -- this includes CIs as well and is NOT negotiable

SECOND REBUTTAL/SUMMARY OBLIGATIONS -- A SCENARIO ANALYSIS:

The second rebuttal must respond to turns -- this is not negotiable. However, responding to defense in second rebuttal is optional. First summary obviously needs to extends turns if they want to go for it, but let's dive into some scenarios about defense.

Scenario A: The second rebuttal only responds to turns and not defense. This means that the first speaking team does not need to extend defense. Extending defense in the first summary doesn't matter because I will allow the second summary to frontline. You can read new evidence/warrants on their case, but defense extensions do not matter in the first summary. If you do extend defense, they will still be allowed to respond, but you can make clarifications or make new arguments if you desire.

Scenario B: The second rebuttal responds to turns and some pieces of defense. The first summary needs to extend those pieces of defense that were contested or else if the second summary extends frontlines from second rebuttal, I will view that as conceded and final focus will not be allowed to make new responses. The first-speaking team does not need to extend or mention defense that was not touched by the second rebuttal unless they want to make new arguments/read new evidence.

Scenario C: The second rebuttal responds to everything on the flow. The first summary needs to extend their pieces of defense that they want to go for. If they do not and the second summary extends their frontlines, then that is conceded by the first-speaking team.

- All evidence read including evidence in rebuttal or summary must be sent on an email chain. To save time please start the email chain before the round. Format the subject as "Blue Key 2021-- Round # -- AFF Team Code vs NEG Team Code" please.You have 1 minute to send the doc after ending prep -- virtual debate has been around for almost 2 years. It shouldn't take any longer to save, drag the doc into the email, and hit send. Anything longer means that you are stealing prep and you will be sad when you see your speaker points at the end. I want Word documents sent, not the awful thing that exists called Google Docs. It's 2021, please learn how to use Verbatim (it's been around forever)

- Because we are virtual, please try to be more clear. I will not flow along the email-chain but based on what you say. I will only use that to view evidence quality. If you're unclear or going too fast, I won't flow that argument, but I will go back and look if you cut out or there are technical difficulties on either my end or yours.

- You may not and I repeat MAY NOT spread any paraphrased evidence -- literally the worst thing to happen to this event. If you do, everything spread will be treated as analytics.

- Running progressive arguments badly is a good way to make me cry

- I have not prepped this topic at all -- do not assume I know common literature or arguments or acronyms

- VBI theory bad article is objectively false

- Is paraphrasing bad?? Probably-- but read theory if you think it is.

- Clarity of Impact is not a weighing mechanism

-Always True: Impacts such as unemployment or poverty or econ loss are not terminal impacts. Instead, they are internal links into something tangible which then can be a terminal impact.

Speaker point incentives are all under here:

-Disclosing on NDCA PF Wiki (good disclosure) -- +0.3/person + not risking a L on disclosure theory. Tell me if you disclose because I'm not checking every round. Must be at least 30 minutes before each round.

-Winning on disclosure theory -- very good speaks if you do it well

TKO: Technical Knockout.If you at any point in the debate believe that you have won the debate without a reasonable doubt i.e. a conceded theory shell, total domination on substance, zero extension from the other team, or a double turn, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team basically has no plausible routes to the ballot, I will give both speakers on the winning team aW-30 and the other team whatever they deserved. However, if I see some plausible ways for them to win that they can take (absent some hail mary whack route that they probably won't take) I will give you-1.5-3.5 pointsfrom whatever you deserved at that moment in the round. This is depending on how bad your judgement was/how close you were to being right. If you call it when getting destroyed, that's probably -3.5 points. Yes, this is somewhat subjective but really rewarding and fun and a great way to get high speaker points from me. If you call it after second FF, you're getting no higher than 26 speaks since the round is already over and you're a goon.

Generics:

- I debated PF for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, won a few bid tournaments, qualified to TFA state 3 years and ended in semi-finals my senior year. I qualified to the TOC twice and cleared senior year going 6-1 in prelims

- Please be pre-flowed before the round and flip before the round so that I don’t waste my time and it’s better for debate to know what side you’re debating before.

-Evidence must have the author’s last name (or institution if last name not available) and last 2 digits of the year i.e. “Wang 18.” If you don’t have this, then I do not consider it valid evidence under NSDA rules and debate in general.This means in rebuttal you need to cite the author’s year of publication and at least the author’s last name or institution if last name is not available.

-Evidence matters a lot to me.You don’t need evidence to make an argumentbut that argument is going to have a lot less weight especially when going against carded evidence.The “this is logical” argument doesn’t really fly with me especially on topics that are evidence heavy i.e. domestic or foreign policy. Do prep. I like rewarding teams that put hours of work into developing their case and building frontlines to every argument imaginable. I’d rather some decent warranted evidence than good, logical analytics. This means your rebuttals should be evidence-heavy and your cases should be evidence heavy as well. Frontlines should be a solid mixture of good evidence and good analytics.

-Few pieces of good evidence> lots of bad evidence. Smart analytics > blippy, garbage evidence. Decent evidence > most analytics.

-All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument.

TLDR for my Paradigm:

A. I am tab, meaning that I will buy any warranted argument excluding "offensive" ones like racism good.Tech > Truth. Making truth over tech arguments is a great way to show me that you're not good at debate.Yes, truth is good but I believe that debate is a game and thus functions on a technical level. However, having both tech and truth will typically win you the round. However, I probably lean a little more truth > tech on the disclosure level and evidence ethics level but you still need to win the flow since I am overall tech > truth. (Read Below)

On disclosure theory: Winning AT: Ask Me or AT: I'll Email it is incredibly easy in front of me. There's probably a norm-setting argument that you can win incredibly easily if they refuse to disclose on wiki but say they'll email you, etc.

If they email you, you can still probably read disclosure theory in front of me and I'll still be receptive to args on norm-setting. There's lots of arguments that you can make against those types of conditional planks on the counter-interp.Basically, I will still gladly buy disclosure theory even if an offer to disclose to you privately has been made before the round.

I'm a fan of the arg that teams that only selectively disclose when they're threatened with disclosure theory should be punished still. If they only disclose once or specifically to you, you can still read disclosure if you read the right interp.

If they say their coach will kick them off, you can still read it if you feel like it. There’s arguments against that argument (like a lot).

B.Conceded arguments are 100% true.There is a threshold for what counts as an argument though (see below). Make sure to implicate your argument.

C. Evidence ethics are extremely important.At the end of the round I may ask you to compile a doc of all relevant cards and send them.Learn how to use verbatim/paperless debate and make a speech doc. It's 2020 and it's not that hard.You should disclose. Read below. There are some massive speaker point incentives to disclose.Evidence ethics is also the only time I will intervene. If you make evidence up, that's a trip to tabroom. Power-tagging severely (adding countries in, butchering stats) is probably a L with low-speaks.

D.Summary needs to have all offense that you're going for.The 2nd rebuttalmustrespond to all offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.I do not require the first summary to extend defense if the second rebuttal did not address it but the 2nd summary needs to extend summary for it to be in final focus.If the 2nd rebuttal pulls a James Chen strategy, then 1st summary needs to frontline their responses and extend defense on case.

Please refrain from going full big picture. Line-by-line in all speeches is definitely preferred.

E.Plans, CPs, DAs, other progressive styles are fine.NSDA rules for these arguments are not a valid response in itself, but you can make it a standard. Just make sure you know what you're doing and not trying to execute a progressive strategy for the first time in front of me. Theory/T is fine as well. You can run theory for strategy even if there isn't real abuse. Friv theory is great and theory education is good.

F. Arguments need a claim and warrant at the minimum. You probably should have an impact and implication somewhere, but arguments without warrants are just not arguments. Just because you have a card doesn't mean there's a warrant as well.

G. If both debaters agree, I will allow you to use whatever is left in CX as prep time or the entirety of CX as prep instead of having to ask questions.THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS GRAND CX. You can't skip that lol for obvious reasons as Grand CX would cease to exist basically.

H. Blippy extensions are 100% if the argument is conceded. If they concede an entire contention for example, you can spend 8-10 seconds on it max. If they only respond to the link or the impacts, just spend more time on that and quickly extend the conceded portions. Just make sure to do implications and weighing with the conceded args.

I. Line-by-line in every single speech and weigh along the way after each argument (I prefer that). Give implications to each argument. Turns case analysis is the best so if you're winning offense from the case, it turns x on their case. Doing that well will most likely win you the round assuming you're winning offense from case.

J.2nd Final Focus DOES NOT GET NEW WEIGHING!!Weighing is an argument and the 2nd FF does not get to make new arguments. The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. If it came up in either summary, GG. You've conceded a weighing argument and you better pray that you're winning some super strong link or impact defense on that argument to where it's zero-risk.

K.If you call "clear" against your opponent and I think they're clear, you're losing a full speaker pointbecause calling "clear" really messes with your opponent's train of thought and interrupts them.

L. Please don't steal prep time i.e. prep after you stop the timer and say that you are done with prep. Doing so will make me sad and you will be sad when you see your speaks. However, to encourage good evidence norms i.e. keeping your evidence organized and being able to access the evidence quickly,I will allow teams to prep while evidence exchanges are happening.Abusing the rule though will make you sad when you see your speaks i.e. calling for 6 cards in one go when you clearly don't need to.

M. You cannot read contradictory arguments in the later half of the round. For example, if someone goes for 4 minutes of impact turns on your case, you cannot de-link yourself or non-unique it unless they also have read a de-link in which case they are stupid. Also, the same thing goes for conceding a link turn and then reading impact turns to your own case. No, just no. Don't do it.

Theory:

-I love progressive arguments andDO NOTbelieve that they are ruining this activity. If anything, I think there raising the rigor of this game. As I state below somewhere, I love theory and read them on anything. You can read it as a way to win. Just don't be a massive prick about it if you read it as a way to win against novices. If you win and be courteous about it, I will give you what you deserve but if you're a prick, I'll deduct speaks but it won't affect my decision.

-I am extremely receptive to theory. I believe that theory can be run for strategy (i.e. run friv theory if you want) and will not deduct speaker points for doing so if you do so graciously.

-I probably prefer shell format for theory since unlike policy, PF doesn't have the speech times to fully develop paragraph theory args so this usually causes a skew and leads to the actual theory debate happening in the final 20% of the round.

-Other than that, I will buy theory on almost anything i.e. condo bad, PICs bad, must read advocacy text, but I am also open to listening to the opposite side. You also need to make the arguments for voter weighing i.e. fairness and education.

-Make sure you do strength of link weighing and weigh between standards and voters. Otherwise, theory just becomes a jumbled mess and if I'm not feeling like attempting to resolve the theory debate, I may just default to substance and vote there. I'll usually always try to resolve the theory debate first, but if you make args for epistemic modesty on theory/substance and theory is muddled, I'll probably just take that route to make my decision.

-If you read disclosure theory and do it well, it's going to be a good day for you when you see your speaks and the RFD.

-Don't need to extend full-interp texts, paradigm issues, or implications if they're conceded, but may be useful to talk about them in an overview to frame the round.

-I believe that theory is aquestion of competing interpretationsmeaning that in-round abuse doesn’t matter but instead is a question of what norm you are promoting. However, this is just my belief but I can be persuaded by in-round abuse, etc.

- If you go for reasonability, you need to establish and warrant a brightline. Going for reasonability is probably an uphill battle for me, but it's possible to win still and probably easier to win on certain friv shells i.e. must spec status, etc.

Defaults for T and Theory:

-Iwill notdefault that fairness and education are voters or the implication of theory. If you forget to read voters or an implication to the shell, it sucks to be you. Fairness and education are probably voters though but again I'm tab on these issues.

-Competing interps, No RVIs are my standard defaults. These are not hard defaults by any means and only apply if nobody makes a single argument. You can easily convince me of an RVI especially if theory comes out in 2nd rebuttal or 1st rebuttal but you need to make the correct arguments.For both T and theory, I am tab on these issues. Just justify your warrants.

-Also, if you forget to read an implication in the original shell, I guess it also sucks to be you. If you go against someone who forgets to read an implication or voters, just say there's no implication and you can move on. I won't let them read an implication in the next speech.

Topicality/T:

-I also really hate PFers throwing out topicality arguments without reading it as a standard shell format or policy-style. If you want to read T, please again read it as a shell format if you don't know how to read it policy-style and make sure to include a TVA.In PF I probably highly prefer shell format since there aren't as many speeches to develop the shell and blippy policy-style leads to the debate happening at the end of the round basically.You need standards/net benefits.Answer why is being non-T bad?Is there some ground, limits arg that you can make? Hell yes, there is. However, you need to prove that. Same defaults as above apply. I am more persuaded by limits>ground. Impacts to fairness and education are fine. If you read other voters, just justify them.

-Also, I am probably more lenient towards reasonability on certain T interps that are grounded in semantics.

TLDR: If you make topicality arguments against affirmatives without warranting why being non-T or questionably non-T is bad, I probably won't evaluate it. Also, if you read T, you need a definition and interp.

-RVIs:

-I am completely open to this debate. I believe that you could get a RVI or that you don't get a RVI. It all depends on how the debating goes.

-For teams responding to theory in the first summary: Proving a RVI here should be incredibly easy. Think please. This means that teams reading theory in 2nd rebuttal should be sure as hell that it's necessary and that they can debate the RVI layer well.

-I default to no RVI so if you want a RVI make sure you read it.

-If you read a shell, make sure you include the RVI debate in the paradigm issues section. Otherwise, you're going to be making RVI args kind of late into the debate and depending on how late they come up for the first time, it might be too late so it's better to be safe than sorry.

K's:

-I am not really well-read in critical literature so please refrain from running extremely complex Kritiks in front of me. Also, please actually understand your kritiks instead of pulling them from a random backfile that you found on the internet.

-I understand the basic stuff (security, colonialism, Foucault, cap, de-dev etc.). If you read a K, I high prefer a link specific to the AC. I don't want K's critiquing the resolution in general that you can read every single round. Those debates are stale and boring.

-K AFFs are also cool by me but they need to do something. Otherwise, I'm just gonna vote neg on presumption and I think we can all finish the round early. I wrote multiple K-AFFs throughout my career but just usually never broke them. If you want to read a K AFF in front of me, that's cool.

-K's that I Love: Cap and De-Dev. If you can run either one of these well and win, your speaks are gonna be good. Cap is probably good in real-life, but this is debate and I read cap occasionally and cut a bunch of cards for cap Ks so I understand both Cap and De-Dev pretty well. For De-Dev make sure you have a uniqueness/brink card.

Default Layering:

Theory>Substance (duh)

T>Theory>K's. You need to do a lot of work to convince me that the ROB outweighs theory.

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, closed out Texas PF State in 2020 and qualified for TOC twice.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Please for the love of everything don't say "off the clock roadmap", just tell me what the structure is. Eg their case then my case or starting on the meta then substance or framework then ill signpost from there.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded :/ You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic (that being said I’ve also been out of the activity for 2 years so don’t push it too hard)

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read or I'll heavily dock your speaks like 25 type beat. For the most part I’m not familiar with weird stuff and wack philosophy stuff, but norm-settings/in-round rules and parameters are all good.

Also I'm aight with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round. They're funny and make rounds more interesting. I won’t automatically drop you for speeding through paragraph theory-style blips, but if you’re called out on it as a voter I’ll consider it if it’s a core part of the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg. I'm aight with abusive arguments as a response just please warrant responses. Most of the time people will ignore 3+ warrants on abuse responses so it's not a bad strat tbh.

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed and dock your speaks.

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it, like even if you say it I'll write it down and then scribble it out with an overwhelming amount of question marks.

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic.

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too, just gimme a heads up

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20." - Cara Day

I will also disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want. You can ask me literally any question on my decision and I'll even show you my flow if you want to see how I came to that conclusion.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage."

Side Note:

I am most receptive to narrative style debate and pass none of my personal beliefs. I’ll vote for you even if I hate your argument and think it’s complete BS, it’s up to y’all to make rebuttals so run whatever you want my dudes.

Add me to the email chain bwright@colgate.edu

About Me:

4 years of Varsity PF at Poly Prep Country Day School 2017-2021

British Debate at Colgate University 2021-Present

Currently majoring in political science and psychology

General Preferences:

I like to think I’m pretty fair with speaks, average is a 28.5 and go up or down depending on how you do.

I’m tabula rasa so I only vote off of what is in the round. Cross is non-binding, if an important concession or something happens in cross bring it up in speech. Defense is sticky with me so second speaking rebuttal has to frontline. Everything that you want in the back half has to be in summary, nothing new in final focus, pretty basic. Please weigh.

I’m fine with speed but in online debates audio can get kind of wonky so I recommend 200-250wpm online, 250-300wpm irl is where I top out.

Progressive Args

Ks: I exclusively ran Ks my senior year (Afro-pess mostly, with some Anti-colonialism and Fem-Ir lit thrown in there) so I know how to evaluate them. I’m most familiar with the stuff I ran but I’m down to hear any kind of K and I think these are the most fun and interesting debates to listen to.

Theory: I’m less familiar with theory than I am with Ks so it’s probably in your best interest to slow down a bit. If there’s a legitimate violation I’m down to hear it bc safety for competitors is the most important thing for me in a round.

Tricks: Don’t run these

Things I like

Entertaining crosses. I obviously don’t vote off of cross but I think it’s incredibly under utilized. Ask strategic questions, get some concessions, and have fun with it. I was known for being a bit sarcastic in cross but there’s a fine line between being sarcastic and being demeaning, learn where it is.

Strategy: Aside from the general not dropping case and extending, if you make some really cool strategic decisions even if I don’t pick you up I’ll probably give good speaks.

If you include a Marvel reference in your speech in a way that isn't cringy I'll bump your speaks by half a point because it shows that you actually read my paradigm and I'm a huge nerd.

Things I don’t like

IF YOU DO OR SAY ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ETC. I WILL NUKE YOUR SPEAKS AND DROP YOU.

Being mean to novices. Don’t do it. A lot of people debate a division up to learn, it’s how I learned how to debate as a freshman, just be civil and let it be a learning experience.

Prep stealing: This is something that’s become more of an issue in online debate. I can tell when you’re doing it, just stop. Especially if you prep steal and give a bad speech now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

Taking a long time to find evidence: if you’re relying on a card to win the round and conveniently can’t find it when it’s called, I’m going to drop the arg. This is annoying

Bad faith theory reading: if you read theory on a team because you don’t want to interact with a progressive argument they’re reading, you are probably going to lose. There are some legit theory v. K/theory v. SV debates, but the overwhelming majority of the time you’re just trying to get out of it.